Slashdot Mirror
Google Removes "Search Nearby" Function From Updated Google Maps
First time accepted submitter BillCable writes "One of the most useful and intuitive features of Google's Map tool was the "Search nearby" link. After searching for a location, users could click on a marker on the map to pop open a window with the address and other details. This window also contained a link to 'Search nearby' — extremely useful if you want to find a list of restaurants near a hotel, the closest pharmacy, or any other business you might want to patronize. Google recently updated their map tool, and 'Search nearby' is no longer present. The 300 posts to the Google Product Forums complaining about this omission indicates this is a feature Maps users sorely miss. Google's work-around (detailed by Google staff in said thread) are a poor substitute and unreliable. There is no indication Google will add the feature to their new tool. For now users are able to revert to the original Google Maps with the 'Search nearby' feature intact. But there's concern that when Google discontinues support that the feature will be lost. So why would Google remove one of its best features?"
I'm guessing the feature was dropped due to privacy complaints, which just goes to show that you simply can't win.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Maybe it's because only 300 people know about it? Yes, that was a joke, but seriously Google Maps has millions of users, and Google knows how many people click on it. If the vast majority don't (even if it's due to not having a clue), I could see why Google might drop it.
Just write your own map application that does this for you, or wait until someone does.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I really miss being able to drag the little man to the map to use street view. I travel a lot for work so I've tried and failed at least a dozen times so far this year to use that feature since I keep forgetting that Google decided to take that feature from us.
It's far from a perfect replacement, but Yelp lets you search for businesses and such by location. You can narrow it down my moving/zooming the mini-map in the sidebar.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Let me guess. Somebody else got a stupid patent on 'search nearby' functionality?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's still available at maps.google.com...
Yahoo is dead as fried chicken.
I don't know why Google would remove this feature, but you can be sure it probably has something to do with their strategy to shove everyone over to Google+ at gunpoint
So we're ok giving away our location when using Google Maps, but don't want to give it away when doing a Google search?
Which way is the privacy wind blowing today?
it's been back for a while now, at least for me
The little yellow dude's in the bottom right.
I use the feature, but I'm not always impressed by the results. It has my exact location, but often suggests stores that are much further away. There are many times when I will search for a store trying to find the closest, but it pushes me to one across town. It is useful, so I hope it comes back, but fixed.
There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
Maybe its because you can simply pull up an area on the map and type what you are looking for in the search bar (i.e. restaurants) and essentially get the same result.
"300 posts to the Google Product Forums "
How many people work at the Google Product Office? Probably more than 300. 300 is not enough people to be labeled more than a blip on anyone's it-radar. Perhaps they were astroturfing.
UPLINK
Swipe left in the main app to get the search by map feature.
Also please give any feedback about the app. We expect the experience to be progressively enhanced.
This is feature they plan to roll into a pay-for-use service sold to non-Google+ customers and free for Google+ customers, after you sign in.
Google wouldn't intentionally cause discomfort for its userbase without a good reason. My list includes the following possiblities:
1) The feature is being improved/expanded and is still in testing phase.
2) Patent infringement (or the claim of) has caused the feature to be removed, at least temporarily.
3) The feature will reappear in a non-free version of the same service.
4) The feature is being exclusively licensed (along with the map data) by another party.
This is VERY FIRST thing I noticed it was lacking. Google has never let me down before, but it got me so upset due to the fact that I was in a hurry that I'm actually commenting on slashdot about it.
Um... this feature is not removed at all. In the new google maps, just search as: "gas loc: your address here"
That's the way I've done it, or else just using the word "near" (e.g. "Catholic confessionals near bars of questionable repute").
I didn't know about "Search Nearby" until my fiancee asked me where it had gone.
It's actually pretty good and can still do this.
Product managers. Agile development. *Lean methodology*
The business world is full of stupid yes-men who constantly jump on the newest trends regardless of merit.
One of those trends, in product management, is "lean methodology", which as some people implement it, means leaving out any sensible features that haven't been explicitly asked for. This is in the name of giving users what they want. The rigid way which product managers interpret it means they resist implementing sensible, intuitive functionality that hasn't been planned for specifically, and the whole product refinement process becomes less efficient as a result, with the minor benefit that you don't build anything that wasn't needed.
For every person that posts to complain, a thousand more can't remember their Google+ password.
Maybe its because you can simply pull up an area on the map and type what you are looking for in the search bar (i.e. restaurants) and essentially get the same result.
So maybe, and maybe so far... here's a probably: Because it's not generating enough revenue.I don't know why people seem to forget that google is a corporation and their main products are services... so funding these things is sorta important. They aren't a charity.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Damn. I'll miss it.
I do a fair amount of travel for work, and would scope out neighborhoods before choosing a hotel.
Google has better control of ads if they decide what you want to find.
Because Google plans on putting it into something more closely tied with Google+ or some other thing they plan on forcing us to use to increase their revenues?
Google cares about two things, collecting more of your data, and making more money.
Which is why so much of their stuff is perpetually in Beta, so they can decide to change it any time they like.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I still see the option when I use their maps.
This just makes Open Street Map look better.
All those comments about OSM and its useability recently on /. is poo.
Can anyone recommend some other map sites that have this feature. I use this all the time. Honestly I am really starting to get fed up with google.
Try this yourself. Type in an address on the search box. when it zooms into the address, go back into the search box and then type in what you want to search nearby.
What the fuck, maybe actually try something.
I mean what the fuck, this is a non story. Second post down form the OP on the link:
"Or, simply zoom to the selected area and search for "tacos""
"Or, simply zoom to the selected area and search for "tacos""
"Or, simply zoom to the selected area and search for "tacos""
"Daniel — Google Community ManagerGoogle Employee
6/11/13
Hey jasongeurts,
You can simply search "tacos near mountain view"
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=tacos+near+mountain+view&data=!1m4!1m3!1d18254!2d-122.2026819!3d37.3473175!4m10!1m9!4m8!1m3!1d609023!2d-118.4117325!3d34.0204989!3m2!1i1440!2i1105!4f13.1
Or, simply zoom to the selected area and search for "tacos"
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=tacos&data=!4m10!1m9!4m8!1m3!1d18154!2d-122.4147761!3d37.7599047!3m2!1i1440!2i1105!4f13.1
Hope that helps!
-Daniel "
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
And now we're starting to get into the "you're the product" stage of Google. Google Shopping now is a pay-for-inclusion system, and soon Maps may head that direction.
I guess that the $64,000 question is how far will it go before either Google stops pushing it, or before they find that they have competitor that outperforms them and resists a purchase attempt...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's the way I've done it, or else just using the word "near" (e.g. "Catholic confessionals near bars of questionable repute").
Google found 1920 results.
GOP.gov - The Website of the Republican Majority in the House of ... ...
www.gop.gov/
The Website for the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives, GOP.gov provides the latest news from the House Republican Conference and its
The United States House of Representatives - House.gov ...
www.house.gov/
On January 3, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives convened to start its second session of the 113th Congress. Speaker Boehner honoring President
Images for congressmen getting caught with gay hookers
- Report images
List of federal political sex scandals in the United States - Wikipedia ... ..... Gary Hart, Senator (D-CO): While seeking the Democratic nomination for president, Hart ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_Un...âZ
This is a list of sex scandals involving American federal politicians.
âZMimi Alford - âZEric Massa - âZChris Lee - âZDavid Wu
Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)âZ ...
The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the younger Republican Party. Tracing its origins
âZRepublican Party - âZDebbie Wasserman Schultz - âZPolitical parties in the United
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
google is a corporation and their main products are services...
Correction: their main products are users. Services are just part of the manufacturing process for producing users to sell to their customers.
This feature had never been very helpful to me, I tried it a few times, but never got anything reliable when I tried. So really...no big loss to me
this is one of the only features i use other than typing in directions... i'm sad to see it gone, i used it all the time
"Maybe it's because only 300 people know about it? Yes, that was a joke, but seriously Google Maps has millions of users, and Google knows how many people click on it. If the vast majority don't (even if it's due to not having a clue), I could see why Google might drop it."
The problem with that kind of analysis is that it does not include any way to measure how important the feature is to those who DO use it.
If you decide to drop (or in this case, offer a poorly-working, poorly-designed substitute) because only 20% of your users even used it, BUT that 20% of users relied on it very heavily, then guess what? Your business is going to suffer from that decision.
All consumers are also products somewhere along the line. Without the services Google offers, there would be no users. Without the users, there would be no product to advertisers. You're definition is shallow.
Google was created to be the R+D arm of the NSA. When governments specifically attempt to create massive IT projects, they always crash and burn. At best, a government (military, intelligence) IT project is LATE, over-budget to a fantastic degree, obsolete at moment of actual deployment, and barely functions. Google (and projects like Google) were highly successful attempts to leverage the advantages of the 'private' sector for creating engines of IT creation for governmental institutions.
Google's hardware and software designs power ALL the major intelligence computer facilities of the West. When Google focuses of supposedly civilian IT projects, like text-to-text language translation, speech-to-text language recognition, face recognition, photo location recognition, street-view, ad-based data-mining etc, it is because these software solutions are DIRECTLY applicable to Google's intelligence and military objectives. Software systems are perfected in the civilian sphere, because experience has taught over and over that governmental projects ONLY crafted in the military/intelligence spheres turn out to be low quality crap, if they even work at all.
For you dumb sheeple still too thick to get it, Google has been acquiring MILITARY robot engineering companies like crazy over the last couple of years. Google's so-called self-driving car is but a GROOMING test-bed for Google's real project- autonomous robotic 'tanks'. Streetview and similar are but intelligence gathering operations to provide the information needed to allow Google-designed tanks to roll down the streets of villages, towns and cities in America's target nations (Google has collected street-view information from far more nations than you realise- only a fraction of this data is available on Google's public services).
Google's plan is to allow the US military to 'subdue' any Human settlement on the planet. Obviously, this does NOT mean Google's robotic tanks could roll into a Chinese or Russian city without provoking WW3. But the US military wants the POTENTIAL, just as Obama is spending TRILLIONS to give the US war machine the ability to strike any place on the Earth with nuclear, chemical, biological or high-explosive warheads within 30 minutes of Obama giving the order.
The owners of Google KNOW that bombing from the air is always a sign of military FAILURE. Google wants America's 21st Century war machine to have the option to win every time against non-super-power opponents. Iran is the test. The entire Google robot project seeks to demonstrate how a future Iran like target can be eliminated using Google technology. The owners of Google, of course, fully expect the USA, on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia, to destroy Iran long before Google designed robotic holocaust machines are ready for deployment- but in the meantime, Google always uses the 'problem' of Iran to show how their tanks will be a 'solution'.
There will NEVER be self-driving cars on ordinary roads in your lifetime, and the owners of Google think it hilarious that even amongst the so-called technical community, IQs are so low, many think Google's self-drive car project is real, and not an exercise in grooming the public to accept autonomous robotic war machines. Indeed, the owners of Google, when meeting fellow elite monsters, use the public perception of Google as 'good' as proof of why the sheeple deserve no mercy.
Use FourSquare.
I used it. And even if say only 1% of Google Maps users used it, that still equals a metric fucktonne of users.
.
Search Nearby is no longer needed. Google just tells you what you want - they know, they don't need to search nearby.
I'm running with the "classic" Google Maps because the new Google Maps is missing a lot of features that I find important. It still has this feature.
I don't know why they remove useful, functional features. I've always assumed it had to do with streamlining the interfaces, Apple-style (motto: "It's either easy or it's impossible"). But they don't seem to end up more friendly or usable.
I keep expecting them to start adding new features such that I'm forced to abandon the classic maps if I want them, but as far as I can tell there's nothing compelling about the new Maps, and I'll keep with the classic until they stop offering it.
I'm a big fan of Google, and I really love the way they give me cool stuff for free. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when they stop supporting things, and assume it means that they're working on other cool stuff. But this has me rather perplexed: a lot of work put into a new interface which is not just feature-poor but clunky.
"So maybe, and maybe so far... here's a probably: Because it's not generating enough revenue.I don't know why people seem to forget that google is a corporation and their main products are services... so funding these things is sorta important. They aren't a charity."
Doesn't matter, if you ALSO forget that end-users are Google's product (according to their own founders). Therefore their software has to be attractive to users, in order to draw them in so Google can sell information about them.
I've seen a lot of this in recent years. It seems many corporations seem to have forgotten that they have to give the people what THEY want... trying to force consumers to do things the corporation's way doesn't work. That's the same basic mistake they made recently with Google+.
The same reason the little yellow street view guy wasn't in the new version either (he is now). They are releasing a rolling beta and using you to test their products.
Damn, I wanted them to enhance the feature. Search nearby was "search from a point". A common use that I had was to search for a particular store along a route. For example, I'm driving home from the white mountains back to Boston - find me a home depot that is somewhere close to the route that I'm going to take, doesn't matter if it's up north or closer to Boston, just want it to be as close to the highway as possible.
"You are" understanding of the Engrish language is shallow.
You misspelled OpenStreetMap.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Google's policy in the past has been to remove a feature if less than 20% of the userbase use it, with the exception of the 'I'm feeling lucky button'.
Perhaps this is just another victim of google's obsession with having clean clutter-free services.
Huh? I've never even heard of this feature, but I've been using essentially the same thing on Google Maps for years. You just navigate to a spot, then search for something. The default search area is the area you're viewing on the map. That's even more intuitive than hunting for a tiny "search nearby" link. I just did a side-by side test and received nearly identical results using the two methods. So that silly link was completely redundant. Good for Google for simplifying its interface.
Does openstreetmap have search nearby function? Cool!
But where is the little white dude? or is Google racist???
Really. Try it.
Search for something. Boom, there it is, right. Now, search again for what you want nearby. Boom, there it is.
All they did is remove unnecessary keystrokes/selections.
For the past few years nearly everything Google has done has been wrong. This is just a continuation of that trend. Many may think they are unstoppable but these missteps are just the beginning and will absolutely have consequences down the line.
I used it. And even if say only 1% of Google Maps users used it, that still equals a metric fucktonne of users. .
Ah, to clarify, that would equal a metric fuckton of cheap bastards.
The term "users" would imply that any of them actually pay for this service, and I grow tired of listening to cheap bastards complain about the taste of their free lunch.
This is also part and parcel with these services being offered for "free". Since free is the only acceptable price tag for any millennial, I fear what our sponsored internet will look like in the future. Again, no complaints. You get what you pay for. Live with it.
To be fair, you can still do a search like this: "X near Y." Works just fine, and will show all the X near the Y. :)
When you have an already loaded map / search, and you enter a new search, it already does a "search nearby".
IE, if I go into Google maps and search for "Times Square, New York, NY", it shows me Times Square. If I then type in "Pizza", it will find all the pizza places AROUND TIMES SQUARE, IE the ones inside whatever window I have open. This is the way Google Maps has always behaved, it is nice an intuitive, and does not need clicking weird extra buttons. It just plain does what you expect it to do without asking.
Yahoo is dead as fried chicken.
I don't know why Google would remove this feature, but you can be sure it probably has something to do with their strategy to shove everyone over to Google+ at gunpoint
They want us coopped up in Google's farm for maximum "conversion rate", whatever that means.
Chrome rats out every URL, but it's to "protect" us from malware.
We got Androids helping track us and carriers' boot lockers keeping us from rooting around.
They make Ice Cream Sandwiches, KitKats, hell, even Search & Maps out of this stuff. What's in Sooglent Green anyway?
Is it just me or are those pigs Eric and Sergey starting to look a little too yahuman to moo?
How does the old aphorism go? If you look around the table and you don't know who the sucker is, it's you? Take a good look around Google. Yes, they're convenient. (Except when they're not.) But you're paying for that convenience, and not in cash.
They also did this with offline caching. It used to be I could cache up to five map areas offline on my tablet. Inexplicably, they took it away. Then they brought it back but it's not in the menu of commands, you have to type "ok maps". I suspect a patent issue but it would be nice if Google gave an explanation. Removing useful features seems counter intuitive to say the least.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Some of the comments here have been that they took away the functionality because they were up against a patent issue. I tried searching for a bit but didn't really find anything that isn't owned by Google already. I'm especially interested in this sort of stuff because I'm writing a map application that uses OpenStreetMap with comparable features. It's a bit harrowing to search for patents related to maps and navigation on Google Patents and see that pretty much every aspect of map applications have obvious and overbroad patents. Most of the map related patents I found are owned by Google too.
Here's a Google patent that seems to cover the functionality in question:
US 8538973 B1
"A local search query and a current location of a user are received. Next, two or more places that satisfy the local search query are identified, and for each respective place a corresponding distance from the current location of the user to the respective place is also identified. The two or more places are then ranked in accordance with scores that are based, at least in part, on popularity of the two or more places and the corresponding distances from the current location of the user, to produce a set of ranked places."
https://www.google.com/patents/US8538973?dq=map+search+locations+distance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wy7YUqrlIY_4qAGZtIDYAw&ved=0CHUQ6AEwCThG
You mean OpenStreetMap.org where when I type in "Pizza" is doesn't show me any pizza places near me, but does list places in Japan or Nigeria?
From my experience Openstreetmap is less useful or at least less user friendly right out of the gate. It just isn't ready for prime time yet. there may be another site that uses that data and has a decent search function, but i'm not going to go looking for it. There are some topics in the forum as for searching for things near by. that lead to another site with a list of sites that you then go look at and see if they work for you.
Sorry, but that is a waste of my time. There may be good data with OpenStreetMap but so far using it is a pain in the rear.
On google maps at least i can type in "pizza" and it will show me pizza places near where I'm looking and even provide contact info and possibly reviews. No fiddling around or site hoping.
Please? I really miss being able to explore a patch of this wonderful planet and read Wikipedia articles about nearby places.
"little yellow dude?"
oh, and dude, "asian american", please.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The entire Google maps leadership team should be fired.
Google is in the (almost) unique position of having outstanding cartographical data, satellite imagery, realtime traffic information, and access to user searches and email.
They could have built an incredible mapping platform with hierarchical point and route storage and sharing, GPX import/export, realtime location sharing (ie. latitude), advanced planning, map overlays, user reporting on traffic incidents/roadblocks/radar..
A year ago, they seemed to be heading in this direction.
Instead, they've slowly been stripping away the features they had that made it useful.
I remember looking upon the Google Maps iPhone app 6 months ago in horror. How do I send my own location? How do I see a topographical view? Why do selected locations snap to the nearest road? Why can't I measure distance, or plan a route in advance? Why can't I save a place, and give it a different name? I laughed, smug in the superiority of my Android version. I thought nice play, Google.. way to stick it to iPhone users, and offer them a compelling reason to switch to Android!
Little known to me at the time, my preferred platform would suffer the same fate. The abomination that was Google Maps on iPhone was ported, and pushed out to Android as well! Now who's laughing, right?
I am literally dumbfounded. Android's old maps application (6.14) was good. Not perfect, but good. The new version is laughable. No more latitude. No more labs. No more topographical maps. No more realtime transit navigation. No zoom buttons for one-handed use. No dedicated navigation button. No arrows pointing the direction of each search result. Bizarre, distracting user interface with clunky "3D" wipes. Still can't share your current location.
It doesn't surprise me at all that they're starting to remove features from the new Maps for web.
I'm almost certain that it's a move to convert the platform from data to advertisement. Less focus on what is actual (corner of 5th and E17th), and what is sponsored (Feel like McDonalds? Here are some locations!). I only hope that competition moves in to eat their lunch, and everyone who was involved in gutting it is offered a package.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Must be the retards from the don't-look-at-my-house "company".
They keep getting my location wrong and don't seem competent in correcting it when I use the correction forms.
All the major GeoIP databases have it correct, Google hasn't a clue apparently.
Although it does seem to have lost the little arrow that hinted which direction the camera would point in.
Open the new maps, go to any location, zoom in and search... unless you are searching for a geographical location it will show all hits nearby.
With patents, and the impending tiered internet due to lack of net neutrality ... my faith in the ability for there to be competitors is dwindling.
The large companies have managed to lock everything down, and you would need really deep pockets to achieve anything.
Because you'll just get sued into the ground. And, then if you get popular, the ISPs will demand a little graft to ensure your packets get delivered.
Behold, the distopian oligarchy is here.
It's so damn useful though. You locate yourself on a map from an intersection (or geolocation if you don't care about your privacy at all) and search nearby places.
Example: I'm at a tire store and it will take 45 minutes before my car is ready. I plug the address of the tire store into Google and search for nearby restaurants within a 10 minute walk. It tells me that up the street, which I did not come by from, has a Denny's.
That's fucking important. I need to know where those Denny's are to avoid them more than Battlestar Gallatica tried to avoid the Cylons, or a salad avoided Jabba the Hutt. I think most sane and rational people have used Google this way right?
As far the maybe is concerned, perhaps, it's that Google really did find a lot of people doing that and figured it was an additional commodity to sell. A local business would pay quite a bit actually to steer real time requests for businesses towards them. I know some businesses well enough to say they would test it out and shift funds away from other marketing budgets.
A half a dozen times in the last 3 years I've found myself in meetings with the local telephone book companies pitching SEO and their own web based directories as the primary product instead of their dead tree publishing. Those companies see the writing on the wall and are not trying to sue or regulate the Internet into compliance with their old business model, unlike some creeps we know. They would jump on that in a second to offer local foot traffic to a retail brick and mortar store as an added service they provide.
Google could make money doing that. Google doesn't service the Internet user except with a glove going you-know-where, they service their real customers and those are the advertising industry and Big Data consumers.
Got a funny feeling that it will play out just like that. A new NearMe(tm) feature with sponsored search results on a revamped directory page.
Google could knock off Eat24.com and Groupon in an afternoon with their search tech, map tech, and payment processing tech.
There's money in it. A lot of it.
Why can't they give us an option in Youtube to search for stuff using titles that are only in a specific languages like English? I am tired of seeing a bunch of spanish crap show up in NEW searches, when I don't speak a word of Spanish; I would rather they just be gone.
I just learned this myself the other day, but you can do a single finger zoom gesture on the mobile version of maps. Double tap and HOLD the second tap. You can then slide your finger up and down to zoom.
I use google maps all the time to find nearby stuff and have never used a special "search nearby" function. Just search... it just works?
Scroll to a random location or your current location, then search for "hotels", "restaurants", "atms", "gas", "museums", "trains", "banks" or whatever... why would you need a special button for it? There's a search field that finds stuff, it can search for more than addresses.
I'd think that they'd be collecting usage data and be aware if this was a useful feature or not. Maybe usage was extremely low, and those few users, plus chronic complainers who jumped on the bandwagon, are now loudly complaining. That or Google is totally incompetent because this _does_ sound like a useful feature.
As you may recall, Microsoft said they removed the Start button from Windows 8 because they collected usage data which showed it was not a useful feature.
Maybe as part of their anti trust investigation in the US and in Europe they were directed to suck so that some users would leave it and go elsewhere?
except that will give you paid for search results that might not actually be near the location. Search nearby returns what's nearby regardless of what advertisers paid google.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
You're definition is shallow.
ObSnark: Not as shallow as your grammar skills!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This is the trap of software as a service in general. Feature gets dropped from 'new' versions, they get dropped for everyone.
They didn't take that feature away.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
They will have dropped the feature because they they cannot guarantee its security.
They most certainly did disable it for everyone for a while. Currently some users see it in the old position, some see it at the bottom right, and most do not see it at all. I just checked with five different browsers, and with three I do not see the little guy. A friend that works at Google recommended using Safari if you need to use street view because they enable that feature for most Safari users. For Safari, when I logged into Google+, I see the little guy. When I clear my cookies, I do not see the little guy.
Google has most certainly recently decided to take the feature from everyone then has more recently decided to allow a few users to use it.
Why would the word "user" imply payment?
Pretty much everything Google has done over the last couple of years has been for the worse. Every interface has been dumbed down. Many useful features have been removed, even from their basic search engine. The android navigation app, is now an accident waiting to happen, with each basic function require a half a dozen tiny button clicks all over the screen. They've made it impossible to comment on anything or leave a review, without a dummy account (and then why bother), and don't even get my started on the Google+ kool-aid. I liked it in sips until they decided to waterboard me with it.
I use Google products less these days and will continue that trend. I was fine with them raping my data, back when they were providing ever increasing utility, but whoever is running the show over there now has replaced the goose that laid the golden eggs, with your ordinary shit dropping variety.
It ain't a "free" lunch - you just pay for it by giving Google all your personal info, rather than by giving them dollars.
The pre-Yahoo AltaVista search engine had the keyword "near" which would find results when 2 words were less than (IIRC) 10 words apart. I sorely miss that. Yahoo immediately broke that when they absorbed AltaVista - something I will never forgive them for and feel no pity as they crash and burn.
There's a cool new search engine DuckDuckGo - hey guys- add a "near" keyword/functionality!
You can still do every single thing you said above. The people are complaining about some button that you are not even mentioning. I don't even know how to get to the functionality they are talking about.
While I think that is funny, I think it is more likely that they will integrate it into the Google maps for android. That way if say you are using your iPhone and safari to use Google maps or the iPhone app you can take a hike. ...then later update the android app to integrate Google+ into Google Maps XD
You lost me here, don't they already have that in spades?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Yahoo is dead as fried chicken.
Keep thinking that, and look at their financials. Here's a 5 year chart.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
Just another day in Paradise
You're definition is shallow.
And your literacy is even more shallow. You're not going to make anyone think you're educated unless you learn better.
Marissa Mayer was probably a major player in that specific functionality. With her gone, others may not be as good about keeping it around...
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
Ah, over-the-top gotchaisms. There's no better way to convince someone to agree with you than acting like a smug douchebag everyone wants to punch, is there?
No, that was a sarcastic question. Everyone but you and the other weak-willed people knows that most ways are, in fact, better.
And now we're starting to get into the "you're the product" stage of Google.
Wait, what? I thought you and all the other "product not customer!!!1!" derplings have been bleating on about how we've been there for the past decade or so! What the hell's been happening all this time, then? You've been (with great futility) trying to whip us up into some sort of a rebellious mob since you learned other people can see it when you bang on your keyboards, and you're STILL crying wolf over...
Ooooooh, I get it now. The first time we were just supposed to be in outrage mode. Then as the years went by without civilization collapsing into a black hole and all goodness being extinguished forever, we were increasing to super outrage mode, then mega super outrage mode, mega super duper outrage mode, and now we should be in the much-feared-by-whoever-we-hate-today ULTRA mega super duper outrage mode. I gotcha. Maybe next month we'll upgrade straight to ultra mega super duper double-secret outrage mode and wear shitty masks to "prove" our point.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I not convince you because I sounded too much like a smug douchebag? Wow. That's really weird. I wonder why that didn't work so well.
Because they jumped the shark.
More precisely, because all decisions at Google are now based on power point presentations in manager meetings. Powerpoints prepared on Macs of course.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Google features are like Game of Thrones characters. The moment you really like a feature is the moment that it gets killed off.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
couldn't a stop at the mid-evil merchant/mapmaker's house to get the nearest location constitute as prior art?
Good doesn't want you abandoning their mapping for.. oh say Apple maps. They want you coming for information from them. That's why this move makes little sense.
For example old and totally non-hip version of Google Maps for regular browser had wonderful "My Location" button. That little white with blue gem in it when active thing. You click on it, and you get a marker on the map where you are. I suppose it could be "approximate" but generally I don't care. When you are in a new city, routing from "My location" to "Blah" was a snap. Now you have "my location" eradicated. You have to find where you actually are, put a dot there and then route from there. Why?
How about returning to where you are right now on the map? Umm... no :P Re-open the maps completely, please.
It's just bad user experience through and through. It looks shiny and fast and doesn't include actually useful features of the past.
Heck, even search is getting worse. I'd think Google will go the Yelp route when searching for things nearby but... no. If there's something Zagat touched it will be at/near the top (no matter that distance is all wrong). In mobile app list of results was so unobvious (it's that little button next to search button that shows you a list of cards with results instead of having to swipe left/right on one result set), limiting things to "nearby" is not really possible etc etc
I think they just lack common sense person somewhere in UX department.
Sigh.
Hyperom.com
Please point me towards the paid for version of Google Maps.
It's not fried yet, but it is running around with it's head chopped off.
I helped a small business migrate their email to yahoo. Big mistake. Some of their engineers are smart, but the business is really hampering their effort. They haven't a clue how to deliver a decent product to a paying customer.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Example: I'm at a tire store and it will take 45 minutes before my car is ready. I plug the address of the tire store into Google and search for nearby restaurants within a 10 minute walk. It tells me that up the street, which I did not come by from, has a Denny's.
Call me strange, but... couldn't you just step outside the tire store and... uhh.. look around? I've never even heard of this now missing feature until I read this /. post. Does anyone actually use their feet and eyes anymore to locate places of interest? Geeze.
I think it's a good thing Google removed this, perhaps people will re-learn how to use their own internal navigational system, you know, that squishy stuff between your ears.
A business decision. It would immediately remove a ton of other links (non-nearby) that are worth money in advertising dollars.
Google Shopping now is a pay-for-inclusion system, and soon Maps may head that direction.
Actually this is all I ever used the "search nearby" function for. Often I would search for a specific address, and if that business didn't pay to be listed, the name doesn't show up... until you hit search nearby, which appears to use phonebook data in addition to paid results. So basically this move MAKES it a pay-for-inclusion-only system.
Easy mistake to make, they are both useless at finding absolutely anything.
I was shocked that Microsoft's copy of Street View has gotten pretty good. They even drive around in some areas that are not technically streets -- like parking lots or unlabelled access roads.
Ok Example: I'm at a tire store and it will take 45min before my car is ready.
I pull out the phone and click maps. No need to plug my address in the phone will centre in my current location. I search for "restaurants" and I get a list of restaurants starting with the closest one with good reviews. I even have a previous / next button.
The phone knows where I'm interested in because it's already on the screen. None of the results appear to be further than a few minutes walk. Done. And all without using an apparently critical feature of Google Maps that I never knew existed that gets the same results.
Instead of dragging, click on the man, then click where you want to see.
Back when Google combined the navigation took into the map tool, they removed the turn-by-turn view thus making both a heck of a lot less useful. I don't know what they're thinking over there, but it's not about usability or customer satisfaction.
Go read the thread on OpenStreetMap, you have to manually type in search nearby or some such thing and then it works great.
Search for restaurants and the area of map that you have focused will show restaurants. They've removed some buttons that you didn't need to click.
In most Scottish cities, the streets are only two road lanes wide, and the restaurants and other shops have their phone number and address on the front window. Sometimes it was quicker just going to Streetview and wandering down the street that it was messing about with search engine results.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Because American streets are about six lanes wide, have rows of trees down the middle, have carparks outside the strip malls, which are a further 100 meters wide and have more trees. So it can be a good 200 meters between the tyre shop and the nearest restaurant. Looking around isn't possible, you need maps.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Don't be a dick.
Unless I am very familiar with the area, I only know:
- information from one of upwards of four directions I approached from.
- lesser reliable information about the direction directly ahead.
- the sides of the street I approached from prohibit me from seeing beyond many times. Therefore, I have not seen everything and unless I take a side street, this means I can't know everything on my own side of the map either.
- General knowledge about how often gas stations are distributed, fast food places, etc. Commercial park, expect more office buildings.
Using Google to tell me that just the next side street over to my right and down a 1/4 mile is a Chili's. Information I had know way of knowing beforehand by observation. I would have otherwise been directed towards a far less preferable alternative the aforementioned Denny's.
So I think the squishy stuff between my ears is working just fine and got me a Triple Dipper for lunch instead of some sort of sad pathetic excuse for a sandwich and fries that make one pine for the old days, when they didn't wish they were dying and not old as fuck.
There but for the grace of God, go I...
I'm not like emotionally invested in the button dude :)
Just pointing out that I did actually use it. I know there are alternatives and that might not even be the best. It's a tool.
I wanted to add that it could very well be profitable and Google took it away and might soon release an alternative adding to their other services.
Now I know you're lying. Google obviously bogosorts every result list I ever get back from Maps on my phone. "Closest" restaurants are always at least ten--if not twenty or thirty--results down.
Hell, half the time I search for something, it shows me something completely unrelated in Portland (which is an hour away). No, I am shocked at how abysmal Maps has become in the past year. I think I still have it rated at one star in the Play store. It's an embarassment!
This is what I used to brag to my iPhone toting friends about!?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Not really. The new maps is basically built around this feature. This seems to me to be a case of people not understanding that "search nearby" is effectively the default Google Maps behavior in the new version. It only moves the map if it doesn't find nearby results, or if the search query is a specific location elsewhere.
Try it yourself. Using the new maps, zoom in on a location with a number of restaurants, and type "restaurants" in the search box.
This is one of the violated patents. I've had a Google phone since 4.0. It's at 4.3 now and I am afraid to upgrade. Every upgrade breaks something commonly used. But I digress. It used to have a full app called "Local Search". Was great for finding strip bars nearby, but I digress again. I noticed around 4.2 that "Local Search" wasn't there anymore. After a bit of googling, I found that it was quietly removed and incorporated into Google Maps because having an actual app that did the search and then having that app start up the Google Maps with the search results violated one of Apple patents. This was after the infamous court decision. Apparently sticking a finger in the map is "innovation". One couldn't Apple patent something less obvious? Why couldn't they patent healthcare exchanges or something? At least, then they'd preventing something useless.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That's what I'd use - I've declined all but one option for location-based services since I've had a cell phone. So Search Nearby would never work for me anyway.
P.S. The one time I allowed it was for a phone where I have location-based services turned off anyway. I also learned the command to turn it off if it becomes at all intrusive before I even allowed it.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Just position the map in the area you want to search, then type in what you are searching for in the text box at the top left. I will show results in the area of the map you are viewing.
"Hey, guy in the tyre store. Any good places to eat around here?"
Yes, but it works the Google way. You can't do a precise search anymore. I used the map to search for company names where I knew the location.
No it does not. OSM is a cartography portal, where you can map shit that's in the real world. You can't really do many useful things in openstreetmap.org but look at the map and edit it. If you want to use it like google maps, you'll have to either download the data and some software to interpret it for you, or use a third party service like mapquest. However, it sucks.
I'm correcting myself here. You actually have to use open.mapquest.com to view the map with OSM data. It's still in beta, but it seemingly does not suck.
just like they dropped sidetabs from chrome.
its also why i'll never use chrome again until the feature is back.
I don't know who the hell is running the Google Maps team, but that asshat needs to be fired. Shit keeps getting worse and worse. The map used to open zoomed to my home. Now it defaults to a quarter of the US. I think they even broke/removed the ability to see traffic patterns from a specific time of day. Now search nearby? WTF Oh and the new maps is horribly slow.
Google has better control of ads if they decide what you want to find.
Except the function is not gone at all. If you search for a location, then type a product - eg. "pizza" - then it will find all the pizza places around that area. It doesn't need the extra button, it works anyway. A button is useful as a visual clue for the clueless, but perhaps they want to use that button for something else later, or just want to "simplify" the interface (for certain product managers' values of "simplify").
Locate nearby is still an option on Yahoo maps. Back to Yahoo.
Correct. But problem. There is no indication that that is what you should be doing now. Google consistently rolls out "improvements" without enough education about new features ( I am way past expecting them to ask for any feedback on the wisdom or usefulness of said moves) and I'm a "Google Partner". Well, I am suppose to be but holy god the maze of navigating what has been migrated from my analytics/adwords/whatever google account is a big pain in the -ss! "Sorry, we can't find your business to complete your registration" Well, I am logged into with my business email, which you emailed with the inviote and there's my business on the *sigh* map, but no, you can't find it. Okay.
I am actually using Yahoo maps for god's sake!