or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Siri's reliance on Google cut in half with iOS 6
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #81 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.


Edited by mstone - 12/20/12 at 4:02pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It isn't a gem, it is the result of science. Research by the way carried out by a gay guy who found anomalies in certain structures in the brains of gay men. Frankly this should not come as a surprise to anyone gay or straight that there are differences between homosexual men and straight and that these differences are determined before birth. In fact it is very disconnected not to acknowledge this as fact, nor the reality of many other illnesses of the brain that are realized at conception or before birth. Some of those illnesses are a lot worst than homosexuality as far as the damage they do to society.

The problem isn't acknowledging there are anomalies that affect how our brains work, the problem is calling anomalies defects and illnesses. Your comments read no different as "scientists" of the past that argued that Jews, blacks, etc. were inherently inferior because of their biology. Do you think left-handed people have an illness? Do you think Einstein was defective?

The brain is so complex that to say that there is not a single anomaly in a person's brain structure is really saying that such a person is abnormal from having no variances whatsoever. Diversification within a species have shown to help the community deal with resource consumption.

anomaly |əˈnäməlē|
noun ( pl. anomalies )
- something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

defect 1 |ˈdēˌfekt|
noun
- a shortcoming or imperfection.

illness |ˈilnis|
noun
a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #83 of 114

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:07am
post #84 of 114
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
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.

post #85 of 114

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:07am
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It isn't a gem, it is the result of science. .....

It's called junk science. I recall stuff like that, and such studies were riddled with problems, tiny sample sets, flawed assumptions and prejudices. One study just assumed the sexuality based on the brain for some samples, rather than bother checking their history, which is basically fabricating or entering corrupt data to confirm your hypothesis. We might as well pretend phrenology describes something real.

Can we please stop this side discussion? It's way off topic.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/20/12 at 4:21pm
post #87 of 114
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
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.

post #88 of 114
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
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).

post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

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.

Far too subtle, TS 1wink.gif.
post #90 of 114
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post
Far too subtle, TS 1wink.gif.

 

t.gifh.gifi.gifs.gifempty.gifw.gifo.gifu.gifl.gifd.gifempty.gifp.gifr.gifo.gifb.gifa.gifb.gifl.gify.gifempty.gifw.gifo.gifr.gifk.gifempty.gifb.gife.gift.gift.gife.gifr.gifempty.gifempty.gifi.gifempty.gift.gifa.gifk.gife.gifempty.gifi.gift.gifempty.gif

post #91 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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. 

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'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 114
Well the elimination of google maps, of course did this what else, now all it is web searches
post #94 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

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 didn't say it happened here. I said it happens - and you seem to be agreeing.
Edited by jragosta - 12/20/12 at 6:15pm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #95 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/12 at 5:49pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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. 

Thanks for commenting on that post. Usually when I think I actually make a poignant comment and/or one that requires a deal of research it never seems to get a reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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

There testing method seems pretty decent to me. The only thing I would have done to round off that article was to note how the margin off error. Answers.com has 2x the number of US citizens as the number of mailing addresses. Using that with the 311.5 million US citizens we get 623 million addresses. With a sample size of 1000 we have a margin or error of 3.1.

Again, we don't know if they verified all their 1000 US addresses, how they chose the addresses, how they verified them. As previously stated this is an issue that will require a consensus on what is considered in/accurate which is why I think your position on this issue is ultimately flawed.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There testing method seems pretty decent to me. The only thing I would have done to round off that article was to note how the margin off error. Answers.com has 2x the number of US citizens as the number of mailing addresses. Using that with the 311.5 million US citizens we get 623 million addresses. With a sample size of 1000 we have a margin or error of 3.1.
Again, we don't know if they verified all their 1000 US addresses, how they chose the addresses, how they verified them. As previously stated this is an issue that will require a consensus on what is considered in/accurate which is why I think your position on this issue is ultimately flawed.

It has nothing to do with sample size. As in all the other threads where this keeps coming up, I've pointed out that 1000 samples is enough for reasonable accuracy (+/- 3% or so) IF (and only if) the sample is representative and random.

We have no way of knowing of the sample is representative or random. For all we know, they may have taken the sample from a list of complaints that they received. The fact that they are a Google partner is further indication that the data should not be accepted at face value - particularly when they leave out critical issues like how the sample was selected.

In fact, the information they provide is a pretty clear indication that the sample is biased. They stated "We started with a list of 1,000 US businesses in our database". So they are using places that are already their partners. And given that they are a Google partner, that makes their list suspect from the start.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I would never expect you to be satisfied.

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.

So, you still have not proven the oft-repeated claim that Apple's Maps is anywhere near as bad as is claimed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It has nothing to do with sample size. As in all the other threads where this keeps coming up, I've pointed out that 1000 samples is enough for reasonable accuracy (+/- 3% or so) IF (and only if) the sample is representative and random.
We have no way of knowing of the sample is representative or random. For all we know, they may have taken the sample from a list of complaints that they received. The fact that they are a Google partner is further indication that the data should not be accepted at face value - particularly when they leave out critical issues like how the sample was selected.

And I've explained several times that you can never know if a sample size is truly representative or random, or if the results are truly accurate without a consensus. You want something that you can't possibly have. To me this is worse than asking someone to prove a negative.


PS: No one is saying you should accept any data at face value.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/12 at 7:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post

Far too subtle, TS 1wink.gif .

t.gif
s.gif

Woo hoo! My eyes! My poor eyes! I done gone blind!

That should do it 1wink.gif. (The forum software does not like quoting that stuff!)
post #102 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


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 View Post

 

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.

post #103 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


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

No. The standard for proof in particle physics makes courtroom evidence standards look like kangaroo court.

Quote:
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.

We're not saying it doesn't or can't happen. But to make specific accusations without proof is irresponsible.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/21/12 at 6:49am
post #104 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


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?

post #105 of 114
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post
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.

post #106 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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? 

post #107 of 114
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post
…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."

post #108 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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?

One is rigorous, the other is most often a lazy accusation. As such, the metaphor fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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?

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.
post #109 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


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?

post #110 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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?

First, there is no shill policy. This too is just my opinion.

I agree it's a difficult standard. But I prefer that to allowing people attempt to shut down a conversation by labelling people shills. Again, toxic conversation.

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?
post #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

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.

post #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

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!

post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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

Sorry, I've not seen those conversations.

Quote:
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.

I generally like to make claims based on knowledge and not assumption. Adding assumed sins to a list of known sins simply because it's plausible that they did other sins too, seems irresponsible.
post #114 of 114

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 9:59am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Siri's reliance on Google cut in half with iOS 6