{"id":105,"date":"2007-02-14T09:55:58","date_gmt":"2007-02-14T13:55:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/?p=105"},"modified":"2007-02-14T14:07:25","modified_gmt":"2007-02-14T18:07:25","slug":"one-small-step-for-google-a-smaller-step-for-mankind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/2007\/02\/14\/one-small-step-for-google-a-smaller-step-for-mankind\/","title":{"rendered":"One small step for Google, a smaller step for Mankind"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday I wrote of Google now allowing user correction of unverified business listings <\/a>in Google Maps. It was reported by Barry Schwartz<\/a> and repeated elsewhere that I, in part, played a part in this outcome. Well it has been a sort of Charlie Brown moment…. You know, when Lucy holds out the football every fall and Charlie, in his trusting way, goes to kick it…<\/p>\n

After further looking and some user reports, it turns out that this feature is much less widespread than I previously thought.<\/p>\n

I assumed that “unverified” meant any record that had not been claimed by the owner or one of Google’s partners (like Superpages or Talking Phone Book); a record that had no “details” yet associated with it. Google’s actual definition is clearly much more narrow than that.<\/p>\n

In fact, while I can replicate the results<\/a> (so it wasn’t a temporary test on Google’s part) on a single search, I have only been able to find very few “unverified” records in any other industries or locations amongst the many that I have tried.
\nThe issue of accuracy in local data is an important one (see Greg Sterling’s recent post: Data Quality: The Local Achilles Heel<\/a>) and there is value in allowing the community to correct any errors. In fact as a tactic, the easier it is to correct an erroneous local record, the less Google will be criticized for (even obvious) errors in the data and the way they are assembled.<\/p>\n

However, in this case, the essence of Google’s credibility is at stake. The undisputed king of the algorithm has an algorithm that is, on the very rare occasion, assigning a competitor’s web site<\/a> to a business’s Map record. This error<\/a>, while uncommon, shatters the perception that Google is infallible in the search arena. An error like this, creates the impression of unreliability and non-trust amongst users. Google is many users’ single most trusted URL on the web and there is implicit faith in its accuracy.<\/p>\n

The problem, while not widespread, is serious and allowing users to correct the problem could be a step forward. Allowing correction of the few “unverified” records (please report if you find more) that I have stumbled upon out of the twenty five million U.S. business records extant is not an adequate solution.<\/p>\n

Perhaps, the example that I have found, is but a first step in allowing community input. Perhaps an algorithm that fixes the problem is just around the corner. Perhaps I won’t have to feel like Charlie Brown after all.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday I wrote of Google now allowing user correction of unverified business listings in Google Maps. It was reported by Barry Schwartz and repeated elsewhere that I, in part, played a part in this outcome. Well it has been a sort of Charlie Brown moment…. You know, when Lucy holds out the football every fall …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":262,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-google-maps-google-local"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t