{"id":16346,"date":"2014-03-18T01:04:18","date_gmt":"2014-03-18T05:04:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/?p=16346"},"modified":"2014-03-18T06:53:13","modified_gmt":"2014-03-18T10:53:13","slug":"google-maps-report-a-problem-does-it-work-for-local-spam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/2014\/03\/18\/google-maps-report-a-problem-does-it-work-for-local-spam\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Maps Report a Problem: Does It Work For Local Spam?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Google’s crowd sourced map building and listing has succeeded on a number of fronts at allowing maps and listings to be updated at a pace that no one else in the industry can keep up. While the mapping side has little economic incentive for cheating, the listing side is prime for self serving activities. For some period of time there has been an asymmetry in that it seems that it has been easier for the crowd to create spam than for the crowd to get rid of it.<\/p>\n

Dan Austin has been active in the MapMaker community for a long time. He has, over the past few years focused on reporting and trying to remove spam from the system particularly in the Locksmith arena. \u00a0Here is a case study on his recent experiences with the “Report a Problem” feature; Google’s primary spam reporting mechanism.<\/p>\n

************************************************<\/p>\n

After Bryan Seely<\/a> released the exploits he used to add false and misleading (spammy<\/a>) listings to Google Maps on Mike’s blog<\/a> as well as on Valleywag<\/a>, Google went into full PR damage control and made some changes in how they handle local spam, including ending phone call PIN code verification for new businesses on Places. After reading this statement<\/a> from Google, I decided to test whether or not the new Maps <\/span><\/span><\/span>Report a problem<\/a>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>is effective for removing spam: \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We work hard to remove listings that are reported to violate our policies as quickly as possible, and to check bad actors that try to game the system by altering business descriptions once they are live on Google Maps. We encourage users to let us know when they see something that might violate our guidelines by using our “Report a problem” tool, found at the bottom right corner of the map. Everyday there are thousands of great edits that get made to Google Maps through Map Maker.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The problem with <\/span><\/span><\/span>Report a problem\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>is that historically it hasn’t worked very well for spam, in my three years using it to report hundreds of spam listings. Either the response was too slow (often months), and\/or unsatisfactory (i.e the spam remained on Maps). My success rate with <\/span><\/span><\/span>Report a problem<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> (<\/span>reporting a wide variety of spam points of interest (POI), including locksmiths), has hovered around 5%, which is why I switched to more effective takedown mechanisms like Google Map Maker<\/a> (MM) in order to remove spam. Unfortunately, MM itself has become more problematic, with the introduction of GLEs (Google Listing Editors from Places<\/a>), who are now reviewing edits to claimed listings. They have systematically degraded the effectiveness of MM to the point that it’s now impossible to remove many spam POIs, no matter how obvious, as they have been denying almost all edits (including spam removals) to claimed POIs, or closing the spammy POIs instead of removing them (a business that doesn’t exist can’t, by its very nature, be closed). \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, after Places segregated Service Area Businesses (SAB) that hid their address from MM, many spammy POIs disappeared from MM altogether, making those impossible to report as well. It also broke the reporting mechanisms on Google+Local <\/span><\/span><\/span>Edit details<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>for SABs, which uses MM to report edits (and the Classic Maps <\/span><\/span><\/span>Report a problem<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>, which also used MM). Here’s an example of a spam SAB with the address hidden that can’t be reported in either Google+Local or MM: \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Aron Locksmith: https:\/\/plus.google.com\/103220027599977382429<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Place page: \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\"1<\/a><\/p>\n

Fake reviews from spam profiles: \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\"2<\/a><\/p>\n

Clicking on <\/span><\/span>Edit details\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/span>leads to this error page (which is the same for all SABs on Google+Local that hide their address): \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"3<\/a>
\nThe reporting mechanisms on Google+Local for SABs have remained broken for many months now. Google has shown no inclination to fix it. Arguably the simplest solution to make it work again is to return SABs to MM (making the address visible inside MM) and continue to hide the address on Places, in order to allow crowdsourcing to verify business listings, since this was the state before SABs were hidden, and it was very effective at identifying and removing spam POIs. Business addresses are a matter of public record, and since Google doesn’t verify the actual business address except by sending a PIN card to that address (which is presently easily bypassed by filing a change-of-address at the local Post Office, or paying someone to receive the card and message the PIN code to the spammer), it will allow anyone to verify the listings for themselves and report and remove them, which is the intent of these reporting mechanisms. Moreover, the original reason for hiding SABs was to prevent people from showing up at the business location (often a private home) if the business <\/span><\/span>only\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/span>came to customers. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Since volunteer mappers frequently focus on not only their specific geographic area, but the type of edits they do, they’re much more effective and efficient at removing spam POIs than either Google’s own workforce or the general public, since they become progressively more efficient at doing so, and can often remove spam listings in bulk, greatly improving the quality of Maps listings. Provided that there’s effective oversight on Google’s end, this is a mutually beneficial relationship for both Google and the prospective spam fighter (often a local business looking to even the odds). Increasing the confidence in the reporting mechanisms will enable more people to actively participate in crowdsourcing verification. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I should point out that Google Places no longer appears to be actively enforcing hiding addresses for SABs, and many spammers ignore it anyway, since they’re focused on micro-targeting for local searches, building up a dense network of false listings in a large geo area in the hope that both Google’s algorithms as well as the searcher will choose the nearest listing rather than the most legitimate (it’s impossible for a legitimate mobile listing that follows the rules and hides the address for their one listing to compete with a spammer who puts up a multitude of listings in the same area). \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

After confronting the somewhat confusing and oversimplified interface for <\/span><\/span><\/span>Report a problem<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, (here’s an alternate pathway<\/a>), I reported a series of five spam POIs in the Denver, Colorado area, which was the subject of much discussion<\/a> on the Google Places for Business forum leading up to the media revelations: \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\"4<\/a><\/p>\n

This is the note I added to all reports, in the Other<\/i>, Notes<\/i> field (I left everything else untouched): \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Locksmith spam. Not licensed in the state of Colorado. Keyword spammy name. See: http:\/\/www.sos.state.co.us\/biz\/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do https:\/\/www.fairtradelocksmiths.com and http:\/\/www.findalocksmith.com\/search.aspx <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In order to verify the business listings, I used three authoritative databases, which I’ve organized into this verification spreadsheet<\/a> for the whole of the United States (and parts of Canada), sorted by state and other factors (although geared toward locksmiths, it’s suitable for verifying almost any type of business, and is a good starting point. For example, lawyers can be easily verified by state bar association websites<\/a>, contractors with state contracting licensing websites<\/a>, bail bonds with bail bonds licensing websites<\/a>, etc. Each type of commonly spammed category usually has its own database that can be found through a simple Google search.) It took me less than 30 seconds to check all three databases for each listing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1. http:\/\/www.sos.state.co.us\/biz\/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do<\/a> (State licensing)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2. https:\/\/www.fairtradelocksmiths.com<\/a> (Free to use and register directory of all locksmiths in the US, run by Mark Baldino<\/a> of Baldino’s Lock & Key<\/a>)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3. http:\/\/www.findalocksmith.com\/search.aspx<\/a> (ALOA sponsored database of registered locksmiths)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I use a two-step process to verify spammy business listings:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1) Check business name: <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n