Thanks to everyone who wanted to take time to respond, and to give helpful indications that I believe Google should read.
Sorry for replying so late, as a have a few very hard weeks till the end of June. But I think almost everyone deserve a reply here.
@MortenCopenhagen , you said that I “accused Local Guides of violating guidelines … “by omission””. Well, I want to say that it wasn’t easy to write this post, and I honestly expected much harder and more personal attacks, instead many responded with logic and feeling, and I think I’ll have to thank everyone, one by one, because in less than 24 hours the beautiful and honest soul of this community came out.
It was not easy to write “omitting” to be empathetic with the Local Guides, as you pointed out to me, or not defending them (us), but if I had done it I would not have gotten this reaction.
I agree that we have to “vocalize” but I also think that we have to share what the filter is doing wrong. It doesn’t mean just complain, it means to provide example, case study, references, and yes, also feelings.
@Xentix , thanks a lot, there is indeed something important in what you said. Geo-data in images can indeed be modified, as Morten is explaining to many, but our timeline probably is more difficult to trick, and Google knows if we modify it. I find it puzzling that Google, based on our timeline, asks us to write a review or share our experience of a place, and at the same time blocks our review of the same place, as @DENIT33 pointed out.
Or, like in my case, and many others, most of the blocked reviews are about parks, natural areas, and so on. Places where there is not a business involved, and no one to buy a fake reviews
I strongly believe this is the first step Google should take: Separate places with an economical involvement from places where there is no reason to have a Fake review. I know that someone could say that a spammer can build a reputation by writing reviews of rivers and parks, but, as I said in a very old post “Is it worth investing so much time?”.
I agree, @I-am-Q . Trust is important in a relationship, and the lack of a minimum level of trust is discouraging. Unfortunately, as you also pointed out, the legal implications can be important, but action should be taken “with” Local Guides, not “against” them. This was the honor of the Local Guides, which for the most part are absolutely honest, to whom I referred.
I think this is what also @davidhyno wanted to point out, when you mention the lack of “human contact”. Grazie Davide, in your position as a PE you also have a very wide view of the issue.
Grazie @PattyBlack per evidenziare anche il problema delle false Guide Locali, e di come una procedura un po’ più rigida di verifica degli account potrebbe eliminare una parte del problema alla radice. Credo che un investimento in “risorse umane” che verificassero profili come quelli segnalati da te e da molti altri, e che ponesse dei criteri più stringenti all’accesso al programma potrebbe essere utile. Come moderatore posso aggiungere che la maggior parte dello spam all’interno della community arriva da Guide Locali che io definisco di “Livello Zero”, cioè che si sono iscritte al programma e, senza nessun contributo sono venuti in Connect a fare pubblicità. Se per iscriversi e poter accedere, o scrivere una recensione, dovessero prima investire del tempo in un test, parecchi rinuncerebbero.
Thank you fr4o your feedback, @TassiloK , @Berno_Foodoso
Thanks, @ChiaraMariaC , I hope someone from the Community in FB will also comment in here, helping us to give a better feedback to Google.
Again, Thanks everyone
