The mapmaker history shows that it closed by “Google Automated Internal Syncer” Oct 18, 2012. Not by vandalyst, my error.

A positive small step.

tx for the update, Linda

Joel and Jade had both posted in my forum in Dec. that MM conflicted and was out of date and we should follow their advice to open/close even if nearby move in-city – not follow MM which said if in-city, just edit existing feature.

Andrew just posted tonight that the MM rules were changed Jan 4 and now are consistent with what Joel and Jade told us to do:

http://support.google.com/mapmaker/answer/1065792?hl=en
“This place is closed: Indicates that the feature has relocated from one place to another, regardless of distance.”

So now at least it’s consistent and they are in sync, but didn’t go in the direction I hoped it would.

@Dave I really gave Google pushback on same city moves since the MM RERS at my forum kept saying the MM rules say DON’T open new and close old – simply edit existing. And I didn’t want have to keep advising businesses to jump through these hoops, if simply editing was an option. Especially since most business moves are nearby/same city.

But in a nutshell I was told by G, on business listings, they really recommend you start new/close old to avoid data conflicts – even though the MM guidelines say the opposite.

IMO this whole problem is because the G+L scraper is out of control. Every time it finds the old data it will try to change your address back. THAT causes support problems. But if the old listing is closed I think it sort of suppresses the old location so it does not keep creating data conflicts. Easier for Google. Much harder and many extra steps for us.