Siri's reliance on Google cut in half with iOS 6 - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

So Apple didn't have data and didn't display it, which by the way is what Google would have done if they didn't have data. So it again comes down to this does Apple work with a company similar to Yelp in your country or Yelp itself? If not then you are out of luck. If so then why aren't the restaurants listed with that service provider; don't try to tell me its Apples fault because it isn't.

Since when is it the customer's or the restaurants' responsibility for being in the the mapping database?

If Google has the information and Apple does not, it is Apple's shortcoming. Blaming it on Apples' partners is just avoiding the issue. Apple has no data in my area and Google does. Why try to deflect the blame to the end user or Apples' partners as being the problem?

EDIT: It takes a bit of experimentation to figure out how to make Siri return the requested results.

I discovered that if I phrase it just so it works:

Me: Siri please search Google for all Peruvian Restaurants in <city><country>

Siri: Searching Google for Peruvian  restaurants in <city named above> 

Works perfectly. Then you can use whatever tools you want afterwards but Google maps integrated solution works better.

deleted

Originally Posted by MacRulez 
Do you understand the difference between "defect" and "anomaly"?  Blue eyes and left-handedness are anomalies, but not defects. 

Ooh, not according to a few people on another forum. Interesting coincidence.

deleted

Originally Posted by MacRulez 
On which forum to people believe blue eyes are a defect?  In the gene trade (egg cell sales), blue-eyed donors often get a higher price.

They were saying more that any feature of any human that doesn't result in the longest lifespan or greatest health should be genetically engineered out of the species through tailor-made babies. One of their examples was hair color that is shown to have a 0.4% greater chance of causing such and such illness should be legally required to be forced to be removed from embryos.

Originally Posted by JeffDM 
Can we please stop this side discussion? It's way off topic.

Oh, is that how we got here? Thought my giant notification would have been enough.

Wish the blink tag still worked. (and if you're using a fairly old browser, you'll see that sentence blink).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


How do we get evidence if the examples that are given are only useful within the scope of that single side-by-side comparison?
What about creating a thread on AI and devising a test to see where the faults reside? Some parameters could be to choose a country, a POI or address in a big city and rural area. When doing an address split between random named and numbered streets, and have some with more complex conventions like 'NW' in the name.
I'd say 20 tests across each service would be a good start.

• 1 country
• 4 POIs in different cities.
• 4 POIs in different rural areas.
• 4 simple numbered street addresses.
• 4 simple named street addresses.
• 4 complex street addresses.

Seems simple enough, but how do choose the addresses randomly around a country? I would use a mapping app but that defeats the purpose. I guess I could just find something and see if the other has it, but how do I know either is accurate? POIs are likely easier to conjure. I guess we could use family and friends in our address books but then we can't do screenshots or detail any shortcomings for reasons of privacy so we'll have to relay on the honesty of the posters who might want to join in.

In a bit of a surprise to me, it looks like someone has attempted some of the methodology you suggested. It's not enough to make a claim that one company's mapping is necessarily better than another's, but it's the closest to what Jragosta has been begging for.

http://blog.crowdflower.com/2012/12/the-accuracy-of-apple-maps-listings-reality-check/

In a nutshell their evidence puts Google clearly ahead of both Bing and the trailing Apple Maps. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Two problems with that.
1. 1100 locations is hardly significant - especially since they don't tell how they chose them. The other samples done (San Francisco and Canada) were comparable in size and showed no difference.
2. It's not surprising that you'd choose a Google partner as your 'source'. Fortunately, the rest of us are smart enough to see the obvious bias:
http://socialtimes.com/crowdflower-teams-with-arcade-fire-google-on-artsy-crowdsourcing-project_b53732

I would never expect you to be satisfied. It just happened to be the closest I've seen to date to what you've been asking for. As I clearly pointed out myself, it's not enough to pass final judgement.

It's worth noting that you've failed to seriously question the results of surveys with smaller sample sizes than this one. There was one was just a few days ago concerning the likelihood of Apple purchases as I recall. Didn't you say the results could certainly be valid with minimal error tho the sample size there was small? Yet in this case you just quickly dismiss the study results altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Of course not. As I pointed out earlier, there is no indication of how the sample was selected or how representative it might be. Without that information, it doesn't matter if they sample 1000 locations or 1,000,000.
Furthermore, the place you cited is a Google partner. No reason to believe that they're impartial.

A Google partner? I would assume you read your entire linked article. You're claiming since they assisted someone else with a project that also received assistance from Google 2 years ago in 2010 it makes them a current partner of Google? Surely that's not all you have. If so it doesn't say what you wish it did. Gruber and his surveys are more a "partner" to Apple than this one is to Google if that's your only evidence that they're in Google's pocket. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


I'm sure it happens. I've not seen anything that clearly says Google does that here. I don't like seeing such an accusation without proof because that's the first stage of how heresay becomes established fact.
I know of two cases where an employee of a given company posted here, but I don't think they were necessarily paid to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Right, neither have I, and I agree with you on providing proof.

Based on the standard of proof you're insisting on, subatomic particles are "hearsay".

Just because someone from Adobe was the only one stupid enough to post here from company IPs, doesn't mean there aren't other people here doing this. You can't even tell reliably what country people are posting from based on their IP, let alone who they are working for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


No. The standard for proof in particle physics makes courtroom evidence standards look like kangaroo court.
We're not saying it doesn't or can't happen. But to make specific accusations without proof is irresponsible.

You're missing or ignoring the point. Nothing is ever directly observed in particle physics, it's inferred, indirectly, from observations of other phenomena.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would be considered "proof" that a specific person is a shill? What would be the minimum proof required?

Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Based on the standard of proof you're insisting on, subatomic particles are "hearsay".

 

Just because someone from Adobe was the only one stupid enough to post here from company IPs, doesn't mean there aren't other people here doing this. You can't even tell reliably what country people are posting from based on their IP, let alone who they are working for.

Innocent until proven guilty. You have to remember that.

Guilt could come from a few sources:

• posting from company-owned IP addresses
• Outright stating occupation in a post
• Outright stating intent in a post
• and more that I'm forgetting

Point is, if we don't have a line to draw, then everyone fighting for any company has to be considered a shill, regardless of where they are.

We've had a few South Korean signups recently, but only a few (they're banned now) ever posted from Samsung-owned IPs.

And it's easier to find this stuff out with just an IP than you'd think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Innocent until proven guilty. You have to remember that.

 

Guilt could come from a few sources:

• posting from company-owned IP addresses
• Outright stating occupation in a post
• Outright stating intent in a post
• and more that I'm forgetting

 

Point is, if we don't have a line to draw, then everyone fighting for any company has to be considered a shill, regardless of where they are.

 

We've had a few South Korean signups recently, but only a few (they're banned now) ever posted from Samsung-owned IPs.

 

And it's easier to find this stuff out with just an IP than you'd think.

Based on those standards, acceptable "proof" is impossible for a shill with half a brain. No one with any sense is going to post from an IP block associated with their company, or the company that is footing the bill, and they are certainly not going to admit to it. So, essentially, the dumb ones get banned, but the ones that are even slightly clever, no one is even allowed to state that they believe them to be a shill? 

Originally Posted by anonymouse 
…no one is even allowed to state that they believe them to be a shill? 

That's where Jeff and I disagree, I think. If you have reason to believe this and can assemble valid evidence of such, I think you can mention it in your rebuttals to points that are made by the person, but don't just go off and say, "He's a shill for [company]; everything he says is wrong."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


One is rigorous, the other is most often a lazy accusation. As such, the metaphor fails.
Because an accusation leads to a toxic conversation or is an attempt to shut down the discussion, I think the burden of the argument is on the accuser, or better not stated.

An "accusation" puts their comments in the context they belong in. Which points out the irony in the shill policy that seems to have been overlooked.

If a shill is honest, admits they are a shill, thus putting their comments in the context to which they belong, they get banned. If the shill is dishonest, covers their tracks, denies they are doing what they are doing, not only is their behavior sanctioned, but they are protected by a policy that demands an impossible level of "proof". In effect, you are telling the shills, "If you want to post here, you'll have to lie about who you are and what you're doing. As long as you do that, we'll protect you from exposure."

Doesn't it seem like you have everything backwards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 

Both you and jragosta claimed that Google have shill campaigns, and I'm curious if this can be backed up at all. If it really is known, is it really known by anything better than assumptions?

They've been outed for astroturfing campaigns in the past. Given everything we know about Google, given all the illegal and unethical activities they've engaged in, do you really think it stopped there, or that it was an isolated incident? I don't. I can't see how anyone could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

They've been outed for astroturfing campaigns in the past. 

Companies have astroturfed  _against_  Google.  

Can you link to any cases with proof that Google engaged in it themselves?

It 's always possible, but I don't recall any.

Thanks!

deleted