I don't think so, my comments are very clearly based on what you posted.
I asked Siri to find one near me, hence maps and location are involved in the search.
Not at all! I'm afraid you don't understand technology, maps has nothing to do with the search. Obviously your location on planet earth is important but that also has nothing to do with maps. Apple is working with Yelp to find these particular points of interest, it is only after finding such that they worry about mapping.
There exist three at least in my town. She bailed entirely because I am not in the US.
That isn't what was indicated in your post. Your post indicated that Siri isn't setup to search for things in Peru. That is no big surprise.
Google doesn't care where I am. If they have the data they display it which is what I want maps to do. Google gets it Apple not so much.
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.
Am I dreaming? People here acutally don't understand that Apple maps is woefully inadequate compared to Google? How many examples of empty/minimal map data do you need to see? Tim Cook apologised for it! He recommended you use something else. Remember?
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.
Right, neither have I, and I agree with you on providing proof.
I'm not religious at all but frankly I'm glad this guy took a stand against gay marriage. The problem isn't one of religious morality but the morality of giving people with mental defects privileges they don't deserve. Obviously one can't change the circumstances of their birth but society shouldn't be allowing such people to express themselves any damn way they please.
The great thing about posts like that is no matter what else goes on here, no matter how heated the arguments, no matter how bitter the divisiveness, a gem like that comes along, from such a distant point in history and so disconnected from the world we live in, that for this one brief moment we can all be united in asking, WTF?
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.
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.
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 |??näm?l?| noun ( pl. anomalies )
- something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
defect 1 |?d??fekt| noun
- a shortcoming or imperfection.
illness |?ilnis| noun
a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Tim Cook apologised for it! He recommended you use something else. Remember?
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
Right, neither have I, and I agree with you on providing proof.
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.
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.
noun ( pl. anomalies )
- something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
defect 1 |?d??fekt|
noun
- a shortcoming or imperfection.
illness |?ilnis|
noun
a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.
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
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.
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).
Far too subtle, TS
Originally Posted by AlexN
Far too subtle, TS
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.
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.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.
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 didn't say it happened here. I said it happens - and you seem to be agreeing.
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.
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.
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.