Ah yes, allowing users to manipulate listings in some cases can lead to inmates running the asylum! My guess is that the Local department is just understaffed, at least at the moment, to review all of these kinds of cases?

Potentially a coding shortage, but even if a code could put a “freeze” on listing edits, wouldn’t a human need to review that listing at some point to know who the rightful owner should be?

While all of the search engines are undoubtedly understaffed at their local properties, the question of how to police their systems is one that should have been better addressed prior to making updates to the editing capabilities of users. And for that matter, prior to implementing local listings so prominently in the search results. But since it’s unlikely to change, I think the most productive effort we can make as marketers is to educate and protect our clients and to provide the search engines with sensible solutions.

Mike, I like your suggestion of imposing a limit on the number of edits made to a listing during a certain time frame. I also thought a previous suggestion of yours (enable an email alert every time a claimed listing is changed) was a good one. I would also like to see Google mail a notice to each business whose listing is edited for the first time with a pin number and instructions on claiming their listing.

Google has more than enough ‘brains’ to figure out dubious behavior.

Exactly, Mike. I’m not suggesting that we do their job for them, but it’s certainly more constructive if we offer solutions, which in many cases seem quite obvious.

Ultimately I suppose yes but even a switch that prevented further editing if more than X number of edits occurred in a certain time would slow it way down and leave only the most abused records for human oversight.