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?"

16 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?!?"

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

      Big Broth-er-Google Maps

      Leave my soup out of this, you insensitive clod.

  2. 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...
  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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.
  8. Re:Simple by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

    You misspelled OpenStreetMap.

    --

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.