Google Guides, where do you guide 3DWH at?

[Chigirinsky Alexander]

Hi Google Guides

I am(was?) 500+ experienced modeler from 2008. You forced me to play "squirrel cage game" dozens times - I won all them. I made two conclusions as the result: 1) Google Guides, you have suck barrel of my blood off during these stupid games. You bored me, I got tired with you, you make me sick - this is price I paid for the freedom do not chose words I gonna use to explain you what are you. 2) The second conclusion is that you are stupids, Google Guides. Indeed, you did not learn any lesson from your defeats, you did not teach each other how do not repeat one and the same error - you stupidly play one and the same "squirrel cage game" again and again and again - absolute evidence of your stupidity you try to hide behind your authority.

Eventually, the worst thing could happen happened. In the process of your permanent degradation you have reached the suicidal level of stupidity - you used to violate Acceptance Criteria. The matter is that Acceptance Criteria was aimed to be common and standard communicative tool; 3DWH society of modelers is multi-lingual one, it urgently needs reliable, understandable and mono-semantic code of laws - it is impossible to develop complex project 3DWH without such a code of laws.  Acceptance Criteria was intended to be such a code of laws. Project "Babylon tower" failed when standard common language was lost. 

Google guides, you did violate your own laws. You have to pay the following price: if Acceptance Criteria has no validity longer then you Google Guides are found to be unnecessary as an institution - you have no language to say us something understandable.

Example: Comedy titled "Appeal process of model http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=c5fa9fa9f209780aaa261f49f4209a7d" - accurate model was rejected; unacceptable model was accepted.

Let us hope that Trimble will provide more honest and clever management of this business. IMHO current management has reached their bottom.

Alexander Chigirinsky

[Auquicu]

WOW !!!!

 

After checking both models I am impressed with Peter/Arrigo's version. It may be te best model ever made for Google Earth!!!

 

Take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fFv8oBO9VEw

 

Congratulations Peter and Arrigo for such accomplishment!

[peterg/gipuzkoa3d]

hello

The model is 2.1 release, coming soon 2.2 with new realistic detailed
domes ¡¡

Gracias Jorge ¡¡
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 7, 9:55 pm, Auquicu <jorgedealber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WOW !!!!
>
> After checking both models I am impressed with Peter/Arrigo's version. It
> may be te best model ever made for Google Earth!!!
>
> Take a look at this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fFv8oBO9VEw
>
> Congratulations Peter and Arrigo for such accomplishment!
>
> El lunes, 7 de mayo de 2012 14:21:43 UTC-5, Chigirinsky Alexander escribió:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Google Guides
>
> > I am(was?) 500+ experienced modeler from 2008. You forced me to play
> > "squirrel cage game" dozens times - I won all them. I made two conclusions
> > as the result: 1) Google Guides, you have suck barrel of my blood off
> > during these stupid games. You bored me, I got tired with you, you make me
> > sick - this is price I paid for the freedom do not chose words I gonna use
> > to explain you what are you. 2) The second conclusion is that you are
> > stupids, Google Guides. Indeed, you did not learn any lesson from your
> > defeats, you did not teach each other how do not repeat one and the same
> > error - you stupidly play one and the same "squirrel cage game" again and
> > again and again - absolute evidence of your stupidity you try to hide
> > behind your authority.
>
> > Eventually, the worst thing could happen happened. In the process of your

> > permanent degradation you have reached the *suicidal level of stupidity*- you used to violate Acceptance Criteria. The matter is that Acceptance

> > Criteria was aimed to be common and standard communicative tool; 3DWH
> > society of modelers is multi-lingual one, it urgently needs reliable,
> > understandable and mono-semantic code of laws - it is impossible to develop
> > complex project 3DWH without such a code of laws.  Acceptance Criteria was
> > intended to be such a code of laws. Project "Babylon tower" failed when
> > standard common language was lost.
>
> > Google guides, you did violate your own laws. You have to pay the
> > following price: if Acceptance Criteria has no validity longer then you
> > Google Guides are found to be unnecessary as an institution - you have no
> > language to say us something understandable.
>
> > Example: Comedy titled "Appeal process of model

> >http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=c5fa9fa9f209780aaa..."

> > - accurate model was rejected; unacceptable model was accepted.
>
> > Let us hope that Trimble will provide more honest and clever management of
> > this business. IMHO current management has reached their bottom.
>
> > Alexander Chigirinsky
>
> El lunes, 7 de mayo de 2012 14:21:43 UTC-5, Chigirinsky Alexander escribió:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Google Guides
>
> > I am(was?) 500+ experienced modeler from 2008. You forced me to play
> > "squirrel cage game" dozens times - I won all them. I made two conclusions
> > as the result: 1) Google Guides, you have suck barrel of my blood off
> > during these stupid games. You bored me, I got tired with you, you make me
> > sick - this is price I paid for the freedom do not chose words I gonna use
> > to explain you what are you. 2) The second conclusion is that you are
> > stupids, Google Guides. Indeed, you did not learn any lesson from your
> > defeats, you did not teach each other how do not repeat one and the same
> > error - you stupidly play one and the same "squirrel cage game" again and
> > again and again - absolute evidence of your stupidity you try to hide
> > behind your authority.
>
> > Eventually, the worst thing could happen happened. In the process of your

> > permanent degradation you have reached the *suicidal level of stupidity*- you used to violate Acceptance Criteria. The matter is that Acceptance

> > Criteria was aimed to be common and standard communicative tool; 3DWH
> > society of modelers is multi-lingual one, it urgently needs reliable,
> > understandable and mono-semantic code of laws - it is impossible to develop
> > complex project 3DWH without such a code of laws.  Acceptance Criteria was
> > intended to be such a code of laws. Project "Babylon tower" failed when
> > standard common language was lost.
>
> > Google guides, you did violate your own laws. You have to pay the
> > following price: if Acceptance Criteria has no validity longer then you
> > Google Guides are found to be unnecessary as an institution - you have no
> > language to say us something understandable.
>
> > Example: Comedy titled "Appeal process of model

> >http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=c5fa9fa9f209780aaa..."

[SnowTiger]

As much as I think it's a bad idea sticking my nose into this thread I'm just going to say that I think Chigirinsky's post is completely uncalled for.

I have bitten my tongue and stayed out of previous rants about reviews (reviews which we all have to content with on occasion whether we like it or not but it's usually painless if not a bit frustrating). But this time you have gone too far.
Keep in mind that unless you have paid for SU Pro, then you are using FREE software.
Furthermore, the Google Guides don't get paid by any of us whether we have SU Pro or SU Free. And even if they were paid, they don't deserve this tone of insult and insinuations.

I too have been disappointed with a couple decisions the reviewers have made, but that's just the way it goes. We either take the necessary steps to better our own models to make them comply with the Rules WE ALL have to comply by ... or we move on to the next model(s).
But disappointed or not, there has never been any occasion that would justify this kind of tone.

I accept that you are frustrated with the whole process. But it is not because of any one or even the group of Google Guides/Reviewers have been picking on you. And I'm confident that they have been completely honest, professional and most of all POLITE any time they have responded to you. Even after you have chewed them out for whatever has you pissed off.

I'm not kissing anyone's A$$'s here. I'm speaking on my own behalf for my own reasons ... against my better judgement.
But I just can't sit back and listen to (or read) any more of this nonsense. I think you will be lucky if you don't get booted from the Forums because you deserve it IMO.
But I'm guessing that Google would rather try (again) to resolve these issues than bar you from the forums .. but then I wouldn't blame them if they don't.

I think you just need to recognize that Google Guides are people with feelings who are just trying to do their jobs as best they can AND they don't owe ANY OF US a damn thing, whether they have jobs because of our modeling or not. I'd bet most people here would have banned you a long time ago if you attacked them in the same ways you have against the Google Guides.

Okay ... fire away at me too if you feel the need !

[peterg/gipuzkoa3d]

Hi Chirs ¡

Totally agree with you .

Peterg

[Jeff Scylla]

 I agree with Chris too. I also sometimes annoys the ping pong but reviewers still consider rather asfriends on the same side as we modelers. And though we give them such a hard time. ;) 

[Auquicu]

100% agree with Snowtiger.

This should be a community, and there is absolutely no need for insults.

[Doug]

I agree as well. I've also been biting my tongue, not wanting to start an argument. But in my opinion attitudes like "Alexander Chigirinsky" are giving this group a bad image. Your post was completely disrespectful and childish. Personnel, if you are so unhappy then maybe you should leave. This should be a positive forum, and for the most part is or at least was.

This forum used to be about making your model better, but it got turned into a blame game. "It's not my model, it's the reviewers" And instead of how can I improve my model, it's become "this is what's wrong with the other model". It's honestly become childish in some respects. "If my model can't win on it's merits, then I'll get the other model disqualified"

The people at Google review a lot of buildings and nobody is perfect. And no matter how many rules there are, each person is going to see things a little differently. And they don't have the time to examine every single aspect of each model. While you can spend all the time in the world compare your model to the "other model" They have to give it a quick review and move on. I can't fathom to guess the number of models that they review. We're not perfect, and we're not clones. I for one am very satisfied with the people at Google and believe they deserve more recognition. This includes the reviewers and the always helpful forum guides.

GE is free, building maker is free, the warehouse is free, the basic version of sketchUp is free, the reviews are free, if you are unhappy then leave.

[Chigirinsky Alexander]

Hi there, SnowTiger's nose sticking in this thread;-)
Hi there, Chris Mowat,

Let me explain four things: 1) how one encounters his "limit of human patience" once; 2) how the percentage of conscientious Google Guides/Reviewers may be obtained mathematically from modeler's experience; 3) how Google earns money from the FREE-for-user srvices; 4) how angel could look devilish.

1) Example of 18-round "squirrel cage game" titled "Great Belt Bridge".
Great Belt Bridge is giant geo-structure, its whole SU-model encounters "pre-processing issue" on reception, therefore it was devided into three sub-models to avoid issue; each sub-model turns out to be not-self-sufficient; each sub-model was provided with proper explanation. Thus I did expect the following event: three conscientious reviewers in-a-row will read description and make corresponding to situation decision each. I uploaded sub-models and game begun; 1) they do idle - I am polite; 2) they do idle - I am polite; 3) they do idle - I am polite; 4) they do idle - I am polite; 5) they do idle - I am polite; 6) they do idle - I am polite; 7) they do idle - I am polite; 8) they do idle - I am polite; 9) they do idle - I am polite; 10) they do idle - I am polite; 11) they do idle - I am polite; 12) they do idle - I am polite; 13) they do idle - I am polite; 14) they do idle - I am polite; 15) they do idle - I am polite; 16) they do idle - I am polite;
17) they do idle - I am polite; 18) they do ... recognize eventually that I am right - I win... They forced me to play hundreds rounds of such stupid games again and again, my patience came to an end.

2) This bored series let me estimate the percentage of conscientious Google. Event "three conscientious reviewers in-a-row read description" happened on 18-th attempt - this fact obtains probabilistic form p^3=1/18; its root p=38% means probability for the Google Guide reviewer to be conscientious employee - well below critical 70% under which System degradation turns out to be unavoidable.

3) Google earns money from FREE-for-user services. All the users of FREE-for-user SU-3DWH-GE services create Content-Media for Google for free, then Google uses this Content-Media as "advertisement hoarding" to sell it (look at the picture). So, there is no need to kiss Google Guides A$$'s - they are pragmatic money-makers on this services, that is.

4) The first my step on the road I step on to grow my wiser is step of recognition "I am stupid ignorant". This road has no another initial position.
To develope a System you have to submit yourself to Standards has been developed preliminary. When you deviate from these Standards - System degrades and crashes.
Google Guides had Acceptance Criteria as Communicative Standard. Now they violate this standard permanently (each round of "squirrel cage game" is one case of such violation). Hence, Google Guides lead SU-3DWH-GE System toward System Crisis.

Sincerely,
Alexander Chigirinsky

вторник, 8 мая 2012 г., 0:42:27 UTC+3 пользователь SnowTiger написал:

[Google Guide Alex]

It should be noted that Google does not make money from the geo-located models in the 3D Buildings layer. Whether our ToS allows us to or not, we don't. It's just a fact. There has been a lot of confusion lately and I'd like to set the record straight here :)

Note there aren't ads in the Xscape Center screenshot attached earlier in this thread. Nor are there ads if you click on the links circled in the screenshot. However, if you search in Google Earth for, say, "restaurants", you'll get place markers with bubbles that do include ads. I'll include a screenshot of what that would look like for clarity. 

I hope this helps!

Alex

[Auquicu]

Alexander, you can give 1000 excuses but still you are so wrong when you insult people.

[matthiasbasler]

Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2012 20:42:09 UTC+2 schrieb Auquicu:

Alexander, you can give 1000 excuses but still you are so wrong when you insult people.

 So true...

Alexander, I had hoped that I would never need to say this, but since this occupation of Geomodelling obviously gives you so much grief, why don't you just unsubscribe here, take a break from it and do something that gives you a real joy?
I guess the poor squirrel used for your "squirrel cage game" would also enjoy a break.;-)

Matthias Basler

[Eneka Mujika]

Pues yo también pienso que debería callarme, pero no puedo.

Me parece que aquí hay muchos que no se han enterado de nada (incluyendo al señor Chigirinsky Alexander).

Durante años nos han dejado jugar gratis a este juego y ahora nos quejamos porque el juego cambia de manos.

Como niños.

Perline per i suini

nk

[Keshan Perera]

Yuck. This page contains some bad words. I didn't read those. Because I'm still 14 years. 

[SnowTiger]

Hello again.
 
I recognize you as a very talented modeler. You obviously take your modeling seriously as many of us do.
I also believe you and I are very similar. I am or try to be a perfectionist (whether I succeed or not is up for argument !). As such, we take it hard and sometimes even personally when things go as they appear to have so often gone for you with regards to reviews.

The only point I have tried to make is that you can get more with sugar than you can with gasoline (or however that saying goes).

I posted THIS article in my pathetic excuse of a Blog a couple years ago, but I believe it still applies today.
Some of you might find it interesting. But then it simply states the obvious to me.

Alexander Chigirinsky > I do wish you the very best and I have no animosity towards you. I believe the others who have posted here have also expressed their opinions with equal respect.
I only suggest that you consider how it all sounds from someone else's perspective and adjust accordingly.
Many of your arguments may well be warranted but can easily be expressed with more respect.

Best Wishes.