Unable to delete a business on the map - Cafe Floresta, Itajuba, Minas Gerais, Brazil

[Svein Wisnæs]

Take a look at this link:

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Caf%C3%A9+Floresta,+Itajub%C3%A1+-+Minas+Gerais,+Brasil&aq=2&oq=cafe+floresta.+itajuba&sll=-22.426898,-45.452991&sspn=0.177085,0.300751&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=Caf%C3%A9+Floresta,&hnear=Itajub%C3%A1+-+Minas+Gerais,+Brazil&z=16&vpsrc=6

There should be two results on this map - 

1. Av. Cesário Alvim, 80 - wrong, old - should be deleted

2. R. Dr. Francisco Masselli, 436 - current, active and needs to be kept

Number 1 is the one we have been trying to delete in every possible way you can think of. We have tried through GMM, through Google Places, through comments on the normal Google Maps and through Google+ Local. Nothing changes. And it also confuses the customers.

I am trying to find out how to correct this on behalf of my customer and it feels like hitting a brick wall. Does anyone know somebody at Google that can actually help and answer?

There used to be a third one before I started working with this customer, but that one got deleted, so at least some things happened!

[JPF]

Hi Svein,

Without having checked deeply both POIs markers history, what I would do:

1- Post this link( »POI1) on the review requests forum and/or mapping-brazil, with country/state/region; (There is a GMaps, place closed, pending request. Though a GMM delete as duplicate, with a link to POI2, might had been better.)

2- If there is not an issue with Brazil/M.G.road names not rendering in GMM: Map/add road+name(despite all the issues regarding Brazil linear features data on Google Maps this helps a lot when editing in GMM);

3- Edit/verify »POI2 marker location, name fields(adding the Local type for the PT names, the primary should be Portuguese - Café Floresta - Local+Primary; and: Portuguese - Café Floresta Ltda - Local+Official, use a first level primary category, instead of the generic E/POI one.

4- Keep a look on POI1, IF the system(aka BOT) reinstate it in the near future, mark it as a duplicate for POI2.

5- If not done yet, take Google+ Local(former Places) ownership on POI2. 

Cheers,

JPF

[Oceanwatcher]

1 - We already posted a review request, and it has been approved...

2 - Not sure why we need to add a road? The roads are there and they are correct.

We have already claimed both listings some time ago and I have tried to delete the incorrect one from Google Places. But nothing happens, it has not disappeared from the map...

I can try to claim them again in Google+ Local, but that should not be needed as they are already claimed...

Regards,

Svein

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the “General Map Maker” Google Group.
- To post a public response in this same thread, please reply to this e-mail.
- To find a list of Frequently Asked Questions, visit- http://goo.gl/yuVdY
- To post a new topic, visit- http://goo.gl/DeX9Z & select 'Post a question'
- To unsubscribe from this list, manage your subscriptions here: http://goo.gl/oGfnJ

Thanks for using Google Map Maker! =)

--
Regards/Hilsen

Svein

[JPF]

1- AFAIK that edit request(May 31) is not approved yet, it says Pending ("The following edit requires further approvals"). Has two approvals so far, but it didn't got published. 

2- Some reasons why I said I would map the complete POI2 adjacent road (If Rua Dr. Francisco Masselli extends completely on that linear feature, including South and up North missing segments) and edit the street name accordingly, since on my side the name is not showing, are:

- Helping others finding that road in GMM;

- Easy to use Street Name field;

- Easy to place Address / Plots features;

- Facilitate mappers, Reviewers and Bots(particularly G+ Local/Places ones) checking location accuracy.

About claiming: I thought there was only one Café Floresta to claim, the POI2... But since I am no G+ Local/Places expert I cannot help you on this. Probably their product forum would be better for this particular issue. 

Regards

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 1:32:51 AM UTC+1, Svein Wisnæs wrote:

1 - We already posted a review request, and it has been approved...

2 - Not sure why we need to add a road? The roads are there and they are correct.

We have already claimed both listings some time ago and I have tried to delete the incorrect one from Google Places. But nothing happens, it has not disappeared from the map...

I can try to claim them again in Google+ Local, but that should not be needed as they are already claimed...

Regards,

Svein

[Flash]

I am a little unclear here; you do realize that Map Maker edits are not published in Brazil, are you not?  I am unsure if reporting it through the Maps/Places edit interface will result in it being published or just added to the queue of items to change when publishing begins in Brazil.  How long ago did you submit it through that method?

[JPF]

@Flash: 

Side note: Regarding Google Maps(web): Poi's/business listings do get published in Brazil(not sure if it also applies to all Latin America). Some(few) shape features also. Main issue are linear features that do not  (yet?). On the other hand, almost all features, including linear, are available for developers, Kudos to Google Maps API and Geocode teams for using/sharing our edits on GMM! (»GM API issue tracker [Comment 47] ; Google Maps Javascript API V3 Reference).

IMHO Although I totally agree how frustrating it can be not having our edits propagating into GMaps(web), I would keep mapping in Brazil. Other Google GEO products might use them and we are helping others having accurate maps.

Cheers. 

[Flash]

Ok, that's an update I didn't know, thank you.  But are you sure whether or not deletions are published too?

[JPF]

Regarding GMM -> GMaps/Pkaces/G+Local I am not sure , but I assume it is. Though via Google Maps API it looks like one can manage features on the maps as well ;) so it might be possible...

[Svein Wisnæs]

@Flash - Yes, it is true, business listings gets published here in Brazil. And fast as well! I did a test with a business here that was not on the map. Regsitered it in GMM, posted a note to other reviewers and it got approved within a few minutes. I checked it on the map as soon as I saw that it was approved and it was already on the map. Does not get better than that :-)

Just to repeat what I said in the first message here:

We have claimed both listings in Google Places. The reason for that is that deleting something through Google Places requires a PIN code. No idea how to get that, but we claimed it just to be sure and then marked it for deletion. And it is still there.

Then we used the feedback system on Google Maps. There was originally three places on the map. Using the feedback on Google Maps took care of the first one. But the second one turned out to be a serious challenge.

After Google+ Local came up, we thought we would have a go there as well as it has a different feedback system. But no luck there either.

Then I thought, why not give it a shot in GMM? So I did. And asked for someone to approve it. They did, but it is still there. How many reviewers do you need to approve something like this? If it helps, please take a look and review it as well! :-)

But seriously - I really need to figure out a way to get rid of it as the wrong one now is ranking higher in Google+ Local and it is sending people to the wrong place!

One possible reason why it is so persistent is that the wrong one here has originally been sourced from an external data provider and the correct one has been made directly in Google Maps as far as I can understand.

One idea - what would happen if we just changed the address on the wrong one so both ended up at the same place? Would they somehow be merged?

What I really need here is someone from Google that can step in and just do the right thing. This whole system is a big mess.

Another thing I have noticed - The new Google+ Local also can be claimed. And it looks like they actually are separate from the old Google Places even if the data from Google+ Local is supposed to come from Google Places. So I will try to claim both on Google+ Local again on Monday and see what comes up...

To have a system for businesses like this without having good ways of controlling it for the business in question is absolutely horrible. The first thing that is needed when you launch is to make sure you have all the necessary tools for the businesses to deal with it. And deleting incorrect information is critical.

[Flash]

I was aware that some level of business publishing occured, as Places is available there; and that would mean they would need to be editable by staff through GMM.  I was just not aware that publishing of businesses could be accomplished by the public, thank you for the information.

You will find that G+ Local and Places are the same thing; it is just the preseentation to the end user that has changed.  Beyond that, I am aware of no changes so far.  If you have already claimed it, you cannot reclaim it through G+ Local; you have it claimed already.

In fact, if you have them both claimed, you need to get the old location out of your dashboard.  Having the same location claimed twice or an old location claimed is a violation that could get the Places account suspended, and then the current location would disappear from the map.

Changing the address and moving it will just create future issues of duplicates being created in the old location when the scrape bots find the old information out on the web.  I'm afraid JPF's advice to mark it as a duplciate should it be reinstated is incorrect; if this is an old location then it must be marked closed; not duplicate.  Duplicate marking will cause it's incorrect information to be merged into the correct POI.  Correcting the information first will leave the door open for the creation of a new POI by the scrape bots.

I am sorry that I didn't have time lo look at this earlier.  You have already done the correct procedure, you must wait for approvals.  Approvals from people who are not trusted reviewers within Brazil mean little to nothing; you need either Brazilian RERs or GRs.  They will not simply approve based on your say-so; marking a business closed and thus removing it from the map is a serious step and they need to be sure.  Many people attempt to mark their competitors as closed, and so we will not approve them until we have our own evidence.   I have closure requests in my own city that are a month or two old, I am not willing to approve them until I drive by and see they are closed.

Please do not do any of the other things you are thinking of in order to "tinker" with the map and get your desired results.  The map is not a toy, and the results will just create more work for other editors in the future.  You stand a good chance of making things worse for you client and causing it to take longer to resolve.  My one piece of advise had I seen this earlier would have been to undo your edit and redo it in Map Maker, as this is a Maps edit right now and reviewers cannot communicate with you.  However, if you do that now, you will lose your place in the queue, so it is too late.

[Svein Wisnaes]

Hi Flash,

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

On 06/17/2012 01:03 PM, General Map Maker on behalf of Flash wrote:
> In fact, if you have them both claimed, you need to get the old
> location out of your dashboard. Having the same location claimed
> twice or an old location claimed is a violation that could get the
> Places account suspended, and then the current location would
> disappear from the map.

That sounds odd. It means that Starbucks can not claim all their places
and they can not ask to have one of them closed if they stop using a
place? Weird. What we have here is the same company at two physical
locations. So it is just as if the customer had another caf� and wants
to close one of them. They have the same name and telephone number for
both, but there is different information as I have edited the correct
one with some additional stuff. One of the ways provided by Google to do
something about this issue is to delete it in Google Places. I did that
some time ago and it shows as suspended. And still it shows on the map.
That is why I started looking at other ways of dealing with the problem.

> Changing the address and moving it will just create future issues of
> duplicates being created in the old location when the scrape bots find
> the old information out on the web. I'm afraid JPF's advice to mark
> it as a duplciate should it be reinstated is incorrect; if this is an
> old location then it must be marked closed; not duplicate. Duplicate
> marking will cause it's incorrect information to be merged into the
> correct POI. Correcting the information first will leave the door
> open for the creation of a new POI by the scrape bots.

Ok. Just for the record - I hate bots. In my opinion all edits should be
done by humans. Bulk import? Fine - that is done by humans and should be
marked as a bulk import and should not need any special privileges to
get changed...

> I am sorry that I didn't have time lo look at this earlier. You have
> already done the correct procedure, you must wait for approvals.
> Approvals from people who are not trusted reviewers within Brazil
> mean little to nothing; you need either Brazilian RERs or GRs. They
> will not simply approve based on your say-so; marking a business
> closed and thus removing it from the map is a serious step and they
> need to be sure. Many people attempt to mark their competitors as
> closed, and so we will not approve them until we have our own
> evidence. I have closure requests in my own city that are a month or
> two old, I am not willing to approve them until I drive by and see
> they are closed.

If others operate this way, it will never get approved. There are no RER
or GR in this area. And nobody is willing to drive 5 hours to approve a
removal like this. On the other hand - it is not very difficult. A
reviewer should look at the name, the phone number and the map and
realize that this is in fact the same business. Then approve it. Seems
that what I need here is someone that is trusted to approve it. Or more
than one. If anyone need any more information, I can supply it, so just
contact me here. In fact, all information needed is provided in this
thread. I could go out and take more pictures, make a video or whatever
is needed.

> Please do not do any of the other things you are thinking of in order
> to "tinker" with the map and get your desired results. The map is not
> a toy, and the results will just create more work for other editors in
> the future. You stand a good chance of making things worse for you
> client and causing it to take longer to resolve. My one piece of
> advise had I seen this earlier would have been to undo your edit and
> redo it in Map Maker, as this is a Maps edit right now and reviewers
> cannot communicate with you. However, if you do that now, you will
> lose your place in the queue, so it is too late.

What edit should I undo? As I have done none... And I do not "tinker"
with anything at all. I have tried all official ways of getting this
fixed. All of them are the ways Google provide us with.

Regards,

Svein

[Flash]

You are misunderstanding what I was trying to communciate, sorry if I was unclear.  If a location moves, then you cannot have both it's old and new location claimed; that is having the same location claimed twice.  If you have multiple locations open and operating, you can have them claimed.  In your Starbucks model, when a location closes, they must mark it as closed and get it out of their Places dashboard.  I am unclear if your customer's old location was 1 of 2 and he now just has 1, or if he moved from location 1 to 2; but it really does not matter, the closed location needs to be removed from Places.

Bots do 95% of the work, and they do 90% of it correctly.  Maps would not be economically feasible without them.

Driving by a business is not the only way to confirm a business is closed.  In the case of the ones I will be doing that with, they are the next easiest step after I exhausted serveral options.  Most places I approve through other methods; but we still need some way to confirm, so do not expect someone to simply look at your request and mark it OK without research.

At this point you should not undo anything; you will just lose your place in the queue.  Likely some GRs have looked at this and have started their research.  Your only option is to wait.  Other options will just start you at square one again, and thus take longer.  All paths provided lead to the same point; a trusted reviewer 

The one thing you might do; leave the "Marked as closed" that came from Maps/Places in place.  Go to the location, take a picture showing it is empty or now another business, geo-code it and upload it to panoramio.com.  Within Map Maker, mark it as closed again, and then in the comments during that closure state "I am an agent of the owner.  Closing this location as they are now located here http://goo.gl/qFy6w.  I have uploaded a photo showing the current state of this location at http://xxxxx"  Put your Panoramio picture in the last spot.

[Svein Wisnaes]

On 06/17/2012 02:59 PM, General Map Maker on behalf of Flash wrote:
> You are misunderstanding what I was trying to communciate, sorry if I
> was unclear. If a location moves, then you cannot have both it's old
> and new location claimed; that is having the same location claimed
> twice. If you have multiple locations open and operating, you can
> have them claimed. In your Starbucks model, when a location closes,
> they must mark it as closed and get it out of their Places dashboard.
> I am unclear if your customer's old location was 1 of 2 and he now
> just has 1, or if he moved from location 1 to 2; but it really does
> not matter, the closed location needs to be removed from Places.

Ok... Will look at that.

> The one thing you might do; leave the "Marked as closed" that came
> from Maps/Places in place. Go to the location, take a picture showing
> it is empty or now another business, geo-code it and upload it
> to panoramio.com. Within Map Maker, mark it as closed again, and then
> in the comments during that closure state "I am an agent of the owner.
> Closing this location as they are now located
> here http://goo.gl/qFy6w. I have uploaded a photo showing the current
> state of this location at http://xxxxx" Put your Panoramio picture in

> the last spot. --

Sounds like the only option left. Brazil is a big country, and as other
edits in GMM are not published, there are not a lot of incentives for
people to get involved. But the problem is that this is hurting my
customers business, so I am willing to put in a good amount of work to
get this done. I will get the picture tomorrow during business hours so
it is clear that a different business is there now. I'll use my phone as
it has GPS.

Again, thank you for the info. After taking a picture and posting it,
I'll request a review in the forum.

Regards,

Svein

[Svein Wisnaes]

As a first attempt, i thought it might be better to just add a comment
to the existing edit to not lose the place in the queue as you put it.

Please take a look at it and let me know what you think:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x94cb7cadabb2f979:0xf019562f2019e79

I will ask in the forum to get it reviewed as well.

Regards,

Svein

[Svein Wisnæs]

5 minutes after posting it in an unofficial GMM group on Facebook, it was approved and published in GMM.

The interesting thing now will be to see how long it takes to carry over to Google Maps and Google+ Local. Will report back as soon as I know! 

[Svein Wisnæs]

@Flash

A quick comment on the Google Places rules:

They way I read it is that you can not claim two listings for the same business AND location. Take a look at all the examples mentioned here:

http://support.google.com/places/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=183009&topic=1656742&ctx=topic

Google is very specific in mentioning "same location". Also, when deleting an entry they say it is ok to keep it in your Places account so you can put it back on the map if you decide to do that later. So there is no requirement to remove it from your Places account after you have marked it for deletion.

Svein

[Flash]

I'm glad the comment helped get it approved.  For future reference, this is why you should do edits within the Map Maker interface instead of the simplified Maps interface; it allows you to leave comments and have discussions with approvers.  This, of course, depends on your technical ability, which is why it is not normally suggested to Places users whom are only working on their own listing.

Interesting find there, thank you.  I was advising you based on what the experts in the Places forums have said to many a person.  If this location may reopen, I would keep it; but if not you might want to turf it to make sure you are not risking anything.

[Svein Wisnaes]

> I'm glad the comment helped get it approved. For future reference,
> this is why you should do edits within the Map Maker interface instead
> of the simplified Maps interface; it allows you to leave comments and
> have discussions with approvers. This, of course, depends on your
> technical ability, which is why it is not normally suggested to Places
> users whom are only working on their own listing.

My technical abilities regarding computers and internet use is solid :-)
And I am not only working on my own listings - this is just one that
proved to be extremely difficult. And it has still not been solved - if
you do a search on Google maps for

Cafe Floresta, Itajuba, Minas Gerais, Brasil

you still get two hits. But at least the wrong one now display that it
has been permanently closed. The problem is that it also display "Is
this not true" as a link. So all it takes is someone that click on that
to keep it there. I wonder how long it will stay on the map before it is
actually deleted? As Google+ Local is indexed by Google Search now, it
is not good to have it there even if it display "Permanently closed"...

Still hoping it soon will disappear! :-)

>
> Interesting find there, thank you. I was advising you based on what
> the experts in the Places forums have said to many a person. If this
> location may reopen, I would keep it; but if not you might want to
> turf it to make sure you are not risking anything.

I'll keep it at least until I see that it has been taken completely off
the map :-)

Thank you for helping!

Regards,

Svein

[Flash]

Actually, that is what is supposed to happen.  You should only find it with a search for the Cafe name.  This lets customers know it has moved.  Without that marking, a customer who remembers that it was located there would not know if it had moved/closed or if it has simply never been mapped.  But it should not show up for searches in general for cafes and similar categories, and it should not appear when simply scrolling around the neighbourhood.

[Svein Wisnaes]

> when simply scrolling around the neighbourhood. --

Actually, that sounds a bit weird as anyone that is doing the search
will find it. That is the whole point of doing a search. If I want to
find the way to Caf� Floresta, I will actually use exactly the search I
mentioned above. And I will get two hits.

If there had only been one listing and we had changed the address, then
there would not be anything left at the old place to suggest it ever was
there. Only the new place. And that is how it should be now as well.
Only one hit when you search for the name. Because anyone searching for
Caf� Floresta will then only find the new place with the new address -
no chance of confusion.

What I am hoping is that Google just leaves it on the map for a period
to give people a chance to respond if it was deleted by a competitor or
someone else trying to make trouble. And then when that period is over,
it gets removed completely.

Regards,

Svein

[Flash]

Perhaps Google isn't fully scraping databases and websites within Brazil as of yet, but when the get it to the same level as places like the US and Canada, their bots will find references to the address you just closed and look to see whether they should add it to the map.  For that reason, you want to have the location marked as closed, so that the bots know not to recreate it.  If you instead change the address, this will cause them not to see a location at the old address and they will create one.