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?"

160 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Just a guess by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Just a guess by krups+gusto · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not sure the local pizza joint is worried that I'll be able to see where they are.

    2. Re:Just a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you divine this from your Jump-to-conclusions mat?

    3. Re:Just a guess by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I never used "Search Nearby", so what was the difference between that and putting "brothels near 1600 pennsylvania avenue washington dc"?

    4. Re:Just a guess by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the local pizza joint is worried that I'll be able to see where they are.

      End users might have complained (in a "Big Broth-er-Google Maps is watching my every move!") sense.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    5. Re:Just a guess by xclr8r · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing the feature was dropped due to privacy complaints, which just goes to show that you simply can't win.

      or to monetize it

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    6. Re:Just a guess by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      I never used "Search Nearby", so what was the difference between that and putting "brothels near 1600 pennsylvania avenue washington dc"?

      2 diferences:

      1) Search Nearby did not need an address. You could use "my current location" for example, as a starting point. This is valuable or people who are unfamiliar with an area, because they might not even know an address for their location.

      2) The example you gave -- which was Google's suggested workaround -- as often as not does not work, according to users.

      The simple fact is that Google, yet again, took something that was well-thought-out, and was well liked and oft used by their users, and messed it up.

      According to the forum linked above, Mapquest still has this feature. I might give it a try.

    7. Re:Just a guess by collect0r · · Score: 1

      The Mayflower Renaissance Washington, DC Hotel
      1127 Connecticut Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20036
      United States

      lol

    8. Re:Just a guess by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the workaround doesn't work.

      1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is the biggest whorehouse of all.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:Just a guess by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:Just a guess by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'd think that they'd be collecting usage data and be aware if this was a useful feature or not."

      Useful to whom? This is a point I made elsewhere in this thread:

      Simple traffic analysis doesn't cut it. Let's say only 20% of your users ever use this feature. BUT... if that feature is very important (valuable) to that 20%, getting rid of it will likely lose you that 20% for good and your business will suffer.

      Seriously: in general, how many people use a feature is only a small part of the picture.

    11. Re:Just a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Before: "WHAT?!??!? Google is USING MY LOCATION DATA?!? Evil! Evil evil evil evil evil evil EVIL!!! Now they'll know where I am and/or swarm my hipster store with too many customers, driving out all the cool kids! Kill it! Kill it NOW! Now let me vomit up a series of pop culture references and internet memes to express my disapproval of this activity, as I feel that will prove my point! *ahem* Kill it with fire! Do not want! Big Brother something something! blah blah blah..."

      Now: "WHAT?!??!? Google's killing their location data-using service? No! Wrong! Evil evil evil evil evil evil EVIL! Were you not listening to my barely-coherent string of pop culture references? That's not what we wanted AT ALL! Why can't you just understand that we want you to not use our location data in your location data-using service? Just tell us what's nearby us without knowing where we are! What is so hard about THAT?!?"

    12. Re:Just a guess by Nermal · · Score: 1

      How does "search nearby" work without knowing your location (aka "tracking you")?

    13. Re:Just a guess by Albanach · · Score: 2

      1) Search Nearby did not need an address. You could use "my current location" for example, as a starting point. This is valuable or people who are unfamiliar with an area, because they might not even know an address for their location.

      Clearly if searching for 'restaurants near xyz' doesn't always work that's a problem, but it did work when I tried.

      You can still search for any location. When you click on the map, there's a display below the search bar. It shows the address and coordinates of where you clicked. Both of these are links that when clicked populate the search box in google maps. From there it is trivial to prepend the coordinates with 'restaurants near' etc.

    14. Re:Just a guess by Nermal · · Score: 1

      ...ah, I think I see what you mean ("aggregating public information" == addresses of stores and whatnot, and assuming "nearby" to be relative to some arbitrary address), whereas the way I always use "search nearby" is on my phone, with "nearby" being relative to my current GPS coordinates. ...which kinda makes this whole conversation moot for me, since I've never been happy with Google's interface for that, and generally just use Yelp instead. *shrug*

    15. Re:Just a guess by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Nah, most likely Garmin has a patent on searching for what is nearby and threatened to sue.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    16. Re:Just a guess by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Big Brother / Google IS watching your every move. But what does that have to do with "Search Nearby"??

    17. Re:Just a guess by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Sounds plausible. Any evidence?

    18. Re:Just a guess by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      But those 20% are just 20%. You cater to the other 80%.

      You build for the majority of your users. If you're in the minority, you deal with it, find a competitor who offers that functionality, or you build your own.

    19. Re:Just a guess by Mashdar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Big Broth-er-Google Maps

      Leave my soup out of this, you insensitive clod.

    20. Re:Just a guess by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Did you even read the summary?

      This isn't "search nearby my actual location"...it is "search nearby the the spot on the map I just clicked".

      If you've got a privacy complaint about that...then I don't know what to say.

      --
      Bottles.
    21. Re:Just a guess by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But those 20% are just 20%. You cater to the other 80%.

      You build for the majority of your users. If you're in the minority, you deal with it, find a competitor who offers that functionality, or you build your own.

      It is an unusual approach to remove a feature because "only 20%" of people are using it. Plus, they make billions, it's not as if they were on a tiny budget and had to make tough decisions in cutting features to save on future maintenance work.

      No, this is in line with other "improvements" on Gmail or Google search. They have lost touch with reality and make decisions according to internal politics alone, exactly like it happened in the US car industry. Now if you will excuse me I have to take my Fiat Cherokee to the carwash.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    22. Re:Just a guess by Hobadee · · Score: 1

      I never used "Search Nearby", so what was the difference between that and putting "brothels near 1600 pennsylvania avenue washington dc"?

      2 diferences:

      1) Search Nearby did not need an address. You could use "my current location" for example, as a starting point. This is valuable or people who are unfamiliar with an area, because they might not even know an address for their location.

      2) The example you gave -- which was Google's suggested workaround -- as often as not does not work, according to users.

      The simple fact is that Google, yet again, took something that was well-thought-out, and was well liked and oft used by their users, and messed it up.

      According to the forum linked above, Mapquest still has this feature. I might give it a try.

      1) Simply search for "brothels near me" or "brothels near Washington DC"
      2) I have never had a problem with the new maps just zooming to an area and doing a search for "brothels" in which a bunch of pins pop up on the map showing me all the local brothels.

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    23. Re:Just a guess by Just6979 · · Score: 1

      You don't need the "near" after searching for a location. General searches such as "restaurants" are always "nearby", ie: they use the viewable area to narrow down the search by default.

      --
      --Justin
    24. Re:Just a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You build for the majority of your users.

      Absolutely. But having a policy of deleting features used by a minority of users not the same as building for the majority of your users.

      If your software has 10 features beyond its core functionality, each feature might be used by only 20% of your users. But at the same time, it's entirely possible that 90% of your users demand at least one of those features. If you remove all the features on the basis that only 20% of people care about that feature, you will end up losing 90% of your users.

    25. Re:Just a guess by JanneM · · Score: 1

      But there's more than one 20% feature out there, and any one user depends on multiple features. It's easy to imagine where just about every single user depends on at least one 20% feature. Remove them all and you have no users left.

      You can even imagine a system where almost every single feature is used by only 20% of the user base. Remove them and you've removed your system.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    26. Re:Just a guess by hurfy · · Score: 1

      If only you were in charge of MS Office.

      Is there 20% of the people using ANY of the features added since...say version 1 :O

      Isn't 20% of Google map users a HUGE number of people? What is worth upsetting or at least annoying that many people?

      Pretty sure it involves Google+ somehow tho. I wanted to watch a Dr Who episode only avail on Youtube or Amazon for $1.99 but Youtube wanted me to set up a Google+ account 1st that I am sure tracks alot more than 1 Dr Who episode :/ If it had asked for a paypal acct or something quick I was ready to pay but not jump thru 6 hoops to watch 45 min of TV on a screen half the size of my TV.

      Why the hell does this chat box feel like it is on the other end of a 2400 baud modem?!?

    27. Re:Just a guess by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      WHOOSH

      You missed my entire point: that is too simplistic of an analysis.

      If your users use a feature casually, and don't really give much of a shit if this little feature is changed, etc., then you CAN change something and nobody cares much.

      But if that 20% of users REALLY NEED a particular feature, then if you get rid of it, you also get rid of those users. You have just unilaterally lost 20% of your business, for no good reason. And make no mistake: 20% is a huge chunk.

      Simply going by "80% of my users don't use this function much" is stupid business management. You ALSO have to weigh how important that feature is to those who use it.

    28. Re:Just a guess by Zalbik · · Score: 3, Informative

      But those 20% are just 20%. You cater to the other 80%.

      Brilliant!

      Every year, just maintain the features that 80% of the users use, and drop the other 20%. After all, why bother maintaining features that don't cater to the precious 80%?

      Strangely, after 5 years you find your company's market share has dropped to just 30% of what it was 5 years ago, and the code base has gotten surprisingly slim....I wonder why that is?

    29. Re:Just a guess by mars-nl · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is that Google, yet again, took something that was well-thought-out, and was well liked and oft used by their users, and messed it up.

      This is why we need OpenStreetMap. It means we, users, are in control. The data is already there. We just need some easy to use smart search functionality.

    30. Re:Just a guess by mriswith · · Score: 1

      Tracking location and letter you see what's near certain locations, aren't really the same thing... :|

    31. Re:Just a guess by Curate · · Score: 1

      With so much focus lately on the anticompetitive and environmentally dangerous practices of Big Oil, we've let Big Broth go completely unchecked. If we aren't careful we'll end up in hot water. Albeit, hot tasty water.

    32. Re:Just a guess by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Most likely, Google couldn't get the online auction working fast enough so that between when you click Search Nearby... and the list pops up, a round of bidding would occurs so that the top ten locations that bid the most out of all the stores in the area would appear.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Maybe it's because only 300 people know about it? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Yelp has this by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Informative

    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."
    1. Re:Yelp has this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Google Maps has this built in. When you do a search it will start the search from the current location shown on the map and work its way out.

      I didn't even know this now removed button existed. I'm not sure how people are going to cope in the future without this button that doesn't make any sense to include.

  4. Patent problem? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:Patent problem? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is my thought, too. Worse, Google's own lawyers probably decided they wouldn't win.

      This doesn't surprise me. I used to work on navigation systems, and obvious ideas (to me) were turned down because they were already patented -- things like "find me the nearest McDonald's or fast food on the road ahead/programmed route".

      IIRC, even things like company-specific icons on the map were already taken.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Patent problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "on a mobile device with rounded corners!" variant of said patent....

    3. Re:Patent problem? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the "rounded corners" thing is such a bad idea. so what? it's a design patent, not a IP patent. If you don't want to infringe on patents, then don't make something that looks like something else that's patented.

    4. Re:Patent problem? by rorripop · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the patent office is competent and rewards genuine innovation. My monitor has rounded corners. So does my keyboard. Parts of my tower are rounded. It's a stupid patent. Having pointy edges on a mobile devices is a really bad idea and the obvious thing is to round them so they don't hurt.

    5. Re:Patent problem? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      it's obvious when something looks like an iphone and something doesn't look like an iphone. it's more complicated than "rounded corners". that's just an oversimplification that slashdotters can shake their fists at.

    6. Re:Patent problem? by suutar · · Score: 1

      Nah, Google's beancounters decided the feature wouldn't pay for the lawyer time.

    7. Re:Patent problem? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      yeah but your monitor, keyboard, or tower aren't phones. btdubs 1999 called they want their desktop back. everybody has laptops these days. notice nearly every high-end laptops is a ripoff of the MacBook air or MacBook pro.

    8. Re:Patent problem? by swillden · · Score: 1

      How is that different from what Impy said, except in the (often erroneous) assumption that paying enough lawyers enough money guarantees a win?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Patent problem? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think I'll patent device shapes that can be represented as an arbitrary number of small polygons.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Patent problem? by will.perdikakis · · Score: 1

      Because rounded corners is not a design, it's a design element. It's like patenting colors. Do you want that? Everyone has to pick unique colors for everything?

      You can trademark color combinations already.

      --
      -Will P.
    11. Re:Patent problem? by suutar · · Score: 1

      As I read it, Impy was saying the legal team didn't think they could win (except perhaps by the 'smother-with-lawyers' method). My take was more that even if the legal team does think they could win, with only a hundred hours of lawyer time, that's probably on the order of $50k. Google Maps isn't something they make money on directly; they give it away and make money off the data they can gather. "Search Nearby" isn't likely to gain or lose enough users to make $50k difference in the money they make off the data, so now the accountants would say it's not worth the effort.

      TL;DR: Impy thinks the lawyers gave up, I think the accountants did

  5. Which Google maps tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's still available at maps.google.com...

    1. Re:Which Google maps tool? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Not if your account has been updated to the newest version, they did make traffic better with the ability to use live traffic or average traffic and a bubble on a dropped pin that shows current time from your default location but the removal of search nearby is a major bummer.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Which Google maps tool? by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Average traffic is there in the old version too. The traffic view information seems less clear in the new version and it still doesn't allow you to estimate the time for a given route based on the average traffic.

    3. Re:Which Google maps tool? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Until it gets rolled out to all of Google's servers...
      Which generally takes a couple days.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Re:Simple by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  7. Re:That's not nearly as bad as removing street vie by belatucadros3918 · · Score: 1

    it's been back for a while now, at least for me

  8. Re:That's not nearly as bad as removing street vie by Fwipp · · Score: 2

    The little yellow dude's in the bottom right.

  9. Inconsistent results by Naatach · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Try UPLINK by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. Value-added service to push Google+ by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Best guesses... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Best guesses... by s7uar7 · · Score: 2

      Google wouldn't intentionally cause discomfort for its userbase without a good reason

      A year ago I would have agreed with you, but after having used the now much-crippled Android Google Maps app I can't help thinking there's been a change of leader there to one whose vision for the product doesn't match the users' use of it.

    2. Re:Best guesses... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get that feeling too. The luster is fading on the Google. It used to be that Google was the hip new kid on the scene showing up the old and crufty beast that was Microsoft, and was more open and cheap than Apple. Even though they had almost entirely different fields of interest.

      Then for a while they had more money than they knew what to do with. They dominated online ads, and made bank alongside everyone throwing money at them.

      There was that minority that rallied against the targetted ad panopticon and the fanboys that twisted everything from "don't be evil" to "maybe you shouldn't be searching for that" into the most ludicrous insults against Google. But everyone has their detractors, and the fact that they were so zealous and twisting made me believe even more in Google's efforts.

      Now? They're old business, and don't exactly have any cool new products coming out. They royally suck at customer service, because we are not the customers, we are the product. Hey, that's great when they're giving it out for free and doing their best to make good products to attract users. But now that they have the users... I'm not seeing the effort to appease them.

      Google Glass was a good idea that the populous decided they wanted none of. It could have been revolutionary, but society says "no". Hey, sometimes you're too far ahead of the curve. It happens.

      They need that self-driving car to hit the market to stay relevant as a tech company.

    3. Re:Best guesses... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      you can combine 2 and 4. They are the same. I would add a new one 4) they found they can make more ad revenue by restricting a feature to G+ users, or something similar. Perhaps they plan on restricting the feature in order to "drive" people to G+. A winning strategy!

  14. Damn right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Try Bing Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's actually pretty good and can still do this.

    1. Re:Try Bing Maps by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      I'm actually somewhat impressed with Bing maps, despite how horrid Bing itself is in every other way.

  17. Re:Don't compain do something by HnT · · Score: 1

    He IS doing something, he brought it to wider attention by getting it on the /. frontpage; if we were serious-business and this was the news, he would be getting paid as a PR guy. Raising public awareness like that can be a good way of putting a bit of pressure on gigantic corporations.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
  18. The same reason they removed transit overlay by a4r6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The same reason they removed transit overlay by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Ugh. I was in a meeting today where they mentioned "Product" Managers as opposed to Project Managers... I instantly know these are the exact same people just trending themselves differently. They even threw in a "synergy" for humanity's sake! Nearly had to stab myself in the brain with my pen, but managed to just roll my eyes instead.

      Love having a 3h meeting where they somehow manage to say absolutely nothing.

      Favorite line: "Teams will work collaboratively and independently". Um, what?

  19. Re:I have never used it - it also cluttered the ma by SJHillman · · Score: 2, Funny

    For every person that posts to complain, a thousand more can't remember their Google+ password.

  20. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    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
  21. I used it all the time by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    Damn. I'll miss it.
    I do a fair amount of travel for work, and would scope out neighborhoods before choosing a hotel.

  22. Re: click-throughs by CrowdedBrainzzzsand9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google has better control of ads if they decide what you want to find.

  23. Cynical answer ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    So why would Google remove one of its best features?

    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.
    1. Re:Cynical answer ... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Not having stuff in beta hasn't exactly stopped other companies from making changes any time they like.

    2. Re:Cynical answer ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Nope. But when Google drops useful features, in my experience it's tied in with forcing people to use some of their other products.

      Most other companies I'd say this was to push people to subscriptions, but Google hasn't done that yet that I'm aware of for most things.

      It just seems like very useful functionality to be removing, which makes me question the 'why' behind it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Cynical answer ... by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Which is why so much of their stuff is perpetually in Beta, so they can decide to change it any time they like.

      If it was a GA product and they removed it - what would you do - sue them?

  24. Open Street Map by Badooleoo · · Score: 1

    This just makes Open Street Map look better.

    All those comments about OSM and its useability recently on /. is poo.

  25. Time to find a new service by jzatopa · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Re: click-throughs by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  27. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 ...
    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. ..... Gary Hart, Senator (D-CO): While seeking the Democratic nomination for president, Hart ...
    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
  28. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:Don't compain do something by Badooleoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And use Open Street Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/

  30. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    "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.

  31. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    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.

  32. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I used it. And even if say only 1% of Google Maps users used it, that still equals a metric fucktonne of users.

    .

  33. No longer needed by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    Search Nearby is no longer needed. Google just tells you what you want - they know, they don't need to search nearby.

  34. Still in classic Google Maps by jfengel · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Still in classic Google Maps by cjellibebi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      [...] streamlining the interfaces, Apple-style (motto: "It's either easy or it's impossible").

      This sums up nicely the trend towards dumbed down user-interfaces. They're spending so much time on making these gadgets and services accessible to the masses that the power-users are utterly being left out.

    2. Re:Still in classic Google Maps by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      How can we eliminate all the buttons? Ooh, what if we could just make one BIG button that does everything? No one wants to see text, just pictures! Make everything round, no make it square, no, trapezoidal!

      These are the things that interface designers have been discussing recently and it's pissing me off. From the Ribbon, to the new Start screen, to Iphones, to the new Google Maps. What the hell is wrong with a fast, intuitive, and logical interface that has a bunch of text links and visible controls?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:Still in classic Google Maps by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      the power-users are utterly being left out

      But if you eliminate all of the difficult bits from the interface, there won't be any power users left since none of the users will have any power. It's a problem that fixes itself!

      Just like they've removed comment threshold filtering on the new /. beta, they'll soon be able to eliminate the "Reply" button as well.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  35. Little yellow street view guy by watermark · · Score: 1

    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.

  36. Re:Simple by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

    You misspelled OpenStreetMap.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  37. Re:Google is not your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can TELL by the interspersion of ALLCAPS that this is a very serious post, and not just the RANTING of a somewhat UNSTABLE anonymous coward busily plugging all his electrical OUTLETS with epoxy to keep the mind control RADIATION out of his head.

  38. Re:Simple by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    Does openstreetmap have search nearby function? Cool!

  39. because it does it by default now. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    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.

  40. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  41. It ALWAYS already worked without it. by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It ALWAYS already worked without it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assuming you expect it to do that, of course. I don't expect that - why would a search box outside a visual display necessarily know anything about that visual display?

    2. Re:It ALWAYS already worked without it. by Splab · · Score: 1

      Yeah, never knew the function original poster talked about, way more intuitive to find the place you want and just type your search in the search bar.

    3. Re:It ALWAYS already worked without it. by reikae · · Score: 1

      Indeed; I would have expected it to search globally, the same way it works when you first open the page. It's cool and useful that it works like it does, but it wasn't obvious to me. Thanks for the hint GP :)

    4. Re:It ALWAYS already worked without it. by markkezner · · Score: 1

      You can always search with the word "near". "Pizza near Anytown, USA"

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  42. Animal Farmily by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    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?

  43. Stop trusting Google. by runeghost · · Score: 1

    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.

  44. Did this with "cache offline" too by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    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." -
  45. Re:Because it's now built into the search box... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the cable TV remote I once confronted. There was no "on", but it had an "off' button. Took me a good ten minutes to work out to turn on the TV, you punch in the channel you want first. Now the TV turns on with the channel you want already selected. One step eliminated! Progress!

    Sure not getting those ten minutes back though.

    The "find the location you want, then any search for a place of interest search after that is based off that location" may be "better" but it's not intuitive. Why should the user assume that's what's going to happen until they try it? Would it have killed them to put in a hoverover or something telling you that? But when you click the "search nearby" link, you know that's what's going to happen.

    And I just tried this:

    New Google Maps: find a location, then search "New Jersey" - you'll see a map of New Jersey.
    Classic Google Maps: find a location, click Search Nearby, search "New Jersey" - you see places nearby with "New Jersey" in the name or otherwise have something to do with New Jersey. Nice.

    .

  46. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  47. Oh, and can we please have Wikipedia links back? by cjellibebi · · Score: 1

    Please? I really miss being able to explore a patch of this wonderful planet and read Wikipedia articles about nearby places.

  48. Re:That's not nearly as bad as removing street vie by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    "little yellow dude?"

    oh, and dude, "asian american", please.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  49. It sounds harsh, but by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:It sounds harsh, but by chrispitude · · Score: 1

      I was hoping someone would write all this up so I could simply say

      THIS THIS THIS THIS

      Especially the "should be fired" part. At first, I was concerned that they made all these foolish changes due to carelessness or ignorance. Now I am becoming more concerned that they are doing these things quite deliberately (for whatever reasons).

  50. Privacy issue? by timlyg · · Score: 1

    Must be the retards from the don't-look-at-my-house "company".

  51. Re:That's not nearly as bad as removing street vie by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

    Although it does seem to have lost the little arrow that hinted which direction the camera would point in.

  52. Re: click-throughs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or before they find that they have competitor that outperforms them and resists a purchase attempt...

    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.

  53. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  54. Re:Single finger zoom gesture by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    Interesting.. thanks for the tip. :)

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  55. Anti trust investigation by rajafarian · · Score: 1

    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?

  56. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

    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.
  57. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    You're definition is shallow.

    ObSnark: Not as shallow as your grammar skills!

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  58. Re:That's not nearly as bad as removing street vie by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    They didn't take that feature away.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  59. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by reikae · · Score: 1

    Why would the word "user" imply payment?

  60. What's happened to google? by Maltheus · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:What's happened to google? by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

      Seriously. This is the dark ages for Google. I smell the work of pointy-haired MBAs.

    2. Re:What's happened to google? by chrispitude · · Score: 1

      My friend and I were recently same this very thing. Years ago, it seemed like everything Google developed either worked exactly how you'd want it, or it worked in even a more clever way than you thought you wanted it. Now, it seems like everything they touch becomes worse for it.

  61. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    It ain't a "free" lunch - you just pay for it by giving Google all your personal info, rather than by giving them dollars.

  62. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  63. Re:Simple by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    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

  64. Re: click-throughs by koan · · Score: 1

    You lost me here, don't they already have that in spades?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  65. Re:Simple by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    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
  66. Re:Search along a route by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    This would be an awesome feature. Find gas station/hotel/restaurant along my route. Why the hell does this not exist?

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  67. Re:Simple by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    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.
  68. Google = George R. R. Martin by BrassShadow · · Score: 1

    Google features are like Game of Thrones characters. The moment you really like a feature is the moment that it gets killed off.

  69. Re:Single finger zoom gesture by MattskEE · · Score: 1

    It's a good feature, but an important feature of any UI is discoverability since most people don't read manuals anymore. Buttons are easy to discover and manipulate. It took me about 2 months to discover the single-handed map zoom gesture. I also think it requires slightly more brainpower to use while driving which is when you really want an easy to use single handed map zoom function.

    Don't even get me started other poor discoverability and fiddly gesture features in Android Kit Kat that replace the older more discoverable features like the fiddly camera settings tree, and swipe to reject/accept calls which has no indication of which direction is which until you start swiping. Some of these changes may predate KitKat, I was happily sitting on Android version 2.something for a couple of years, but I'm not as happy with the new version.

  70. didn't notice by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...as I stopped using Google Maps when they discontinued Latitude. (G+ is way overkill when all you want to know is the location of family members.) I use Waze now. It's not perfect, but it works well enough.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:didn't notice by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Google bought Waze last June.

      Well, crap. That means Waze will start dropping features, or disappear entirely. Time to go shopping again.

      Crap.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  71. Re:Simple by countach · · Score: 1

    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.

  72. Desktop version is also being castrated by saikou · · Score: 1

    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.

  73. Re:Simple by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    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.
  74. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    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.

  75. Re:Simple by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Easy mistake to make, they are both useless at finding absolutely anything.

  76. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    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.

  77. It's not the first time Google has done it. by Sage+Mcargh · · Score: 1

    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.

  78. Re:Simple by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    Go read the thread on OpenStreetMap, you have to manually type in search nearby or some such thing and then it works great.

  79. It still exists by ewrong · · Score: 1

    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.

  80. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by mikael · · Score: 1

    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
  81. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by mikael · · Score: 2

    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
  82. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by EdIII · · Score: 1

    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...

  83. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by EdIII · · Score: 1

    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.

  84. Liar! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    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.

    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
    1. Re:Liar! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now I know you're lying.

      You're right. I'm sprung. Because Google maps produces crap results for you must mean that if it works for someone else they must be lying. I just tried it as a matter of interest and typed food in, guess what, I just found out there's a Chinese restaurant around the corner off the main road closer than the closest restaurant I knew about. First result too. Second result is my usual Chinese place around a 5min walk from here.

      3rd result is not the 3rd closest, but 4th from the looks of things. But close enough.

  85. Re:Simple by Chalnoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  86. I actually know why by superwiz · · Score: 1

    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.
  87. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    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?
  88. Not Removed by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

    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.

  89. Re:Maybe it's because only 300 people know about i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Hey, guy in the tyre store. Any good places to eat around here?"

  90. Re:Simple by jalopezp · · Score: 1

    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.

  91. Re:Simple by jalopezp · · Score: 1

    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.

  92. Google maps gets worse and worse by psypher69571 · · Score: 1

    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.

  93. Re: click-throughs by cavebison · · Score: 1

    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").