
Local—now with a dash of Zagat and a sprinkle of Google+ - avsaro
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/localnow-with-dash-of-zagat-and.html
======
afc
Whoah, “Any future ratings, reviews, or photos will be visible on the web
under the name <my name>”. “Your reviews and associated photos are displayed
to [...] anyone who views places you've reviewed.”

No way to “share with precisely the right folks”? Talk about awkward online
sharing. Ugh.

I wrote 198 reviews in the past but I don't feel comfortable making them
public. I'd be fine with extended circles or some such. If I try to edit them,
I get forced to make them public. I'm a bit disappointed.

------
twelvechairs
This just looks awful.... Looking for restaurants in my city I get a list, of
which I can display a whole two (!!!) on my screen at once, next to a tiny
sliver of a map, because google wants to provide me a link to every service
they have ever invented on the side of the screen (seriously, this is barely
an exaggeration).... And within this list I get a host of useless information
such as "at a glance: flavour, dining experience", "Score: overall: 15" (15
out of what?!!!), and a half of one persons text review (what good is half of
one review for anyone?). Awful design. Just afwul.

And this is aside from the fact that the big 'restructure' and integration
with G+ to succeed really needs me to have all of my friends using the same
service, reviewing restaurants under their real names (v. unlikely).

Why don't google just focus on providing some clean and simple frontends to
all that data they have. I'd love a better service to look up a decent
restaurant to go to. This is very definitely not it...

~~~
jxi
This sounds like a "30 seconds of usage just to find reasons to bash another
G+ product" type of review. The Zagat rating system is pretty clearly
described when you choose a category, and it's also shown if you hover the
score. Also, are you saying there's too much or too little text? First you're
complaining that you can't see enough, then you're saying there's not enough
information. There's a contradiction here.

I honestly think it looks fine, and seeing 3 restaurants per category to
choose a category seems fine to me. I think there's all the info I need at
each step of drilling down as well. Looks great to me.

~~~
twelvechairs
> Also, are you saying there's too much or too little text?

Its both. There is loads too much stuff on the screen (that I'm not interested
in in the slightest), and at the same time it is very difficult for me to try
to make a comparison of multiple restaurants. Whether I want to do this by
average review, price, location, by looking at individual reviews, etc. it all
involves a huge amount of scrolling and clicking and remembering where to
scroll to on the previous page etc. (much more than necessary). At least for
the way I want to look for restaurants.

Actually the Zagat rating system is pretty straightforward, but I don't seem
to get it in my city (outside the USA), just an 'overall score'.

Also - Apologies if I was a little on the condescending side - its genuinely
because I want google to produce a good product that I can use, but for me I
can never see myself finding this useful.

------
ok_craig
I like Google and G+, but I think the appropriate place for these updates is
in Google Maps. I don't know when I'll be searching for food in G+. Probably
not soon.

IMO, what really needs to be updated are the Maps pages that look like this:
<http://goo.gl/RwKqM>. Every time I land on one I just end up manually typing
the restaurant's name into Yelp instead. That's extra work, but I do it. Then
I'm in Yelp and I just browse around in there instead of Google Maps, so those
pages pretty much actively push me to use another service.

Generally I go to yelp because clicking the restaurant's picture doesn't eject
me into a random site that the picture was scraped from, the reviews seem to
be more helpful, and the users all have pictures. All the blank user
silhouettes on the maps pages make it feel cheap. A lot of other things could
be improved too but I can't think of what specifically atm.

~~~
jlees
The Google+ Local landing pages _are_ the replacement for those Maps pages. It
may take time for this to roll out but it's what I see when I click "more
info" or the restaurant name from a search in Maps. It's a huge improvement.

~~~
ok_craig
I agree! I wasn't seeing this earlier but now I am. Pretty cool.

------
rjv
This interface is way too cluttered. They're showing a half-dozen arbitrary
numbers per restaurant and that means absolutely nothing to me. The UX needs a
lot of work and needs to get beyond this silly made-for-computers rating
system.

Do they really expect me to calculate the average "cost per person" too? I
know it says optional but that's absurd.

~~~
jrockway
"Made for computers rating system"? The thirty-point scale is exactly what
Zagat has done for years.

 _Do they really expect me to calculate the average "cost per person" too? I
know it says optional but that's absurd._

Total bill divided by number of people. It's optional, but ultimately a very
helpful field for those who are reading your review. Most people want to go to
a good restaurant, but not if it costs $300 per person. Being able to filter
those out without manually reading each review is helpful to them, and
theoretically you are writing a review to help other people :)

------
webwright
Google keeps changing the names of things that they've previously launched.
Google Docs becomes Google Drive. Google Places becomes Google Plus Local
(aside-- why isn't Local tied into search instead of Google+?!).

I think name changes like this are incredibly resource-consuming and confusing
for users. It's interesting to note that Apple has never changed iTunes' name,
even though it's way broader than "tunes" at this point.

~~~
freehunter
Google Docs is still around. Google Drive is just an addon to that which
provides storage for more than just documents. Previously this was integrated
into Google Docs, which made no sense.

~~~
webwright
In the black bar at the top of gmail, there used to be a link called "Docs".
Now it says "drive". It's been pretty well fully rebranded to "Drive". In
fact, docs.google.com redirects to drive.google.com.

~~~
freehunter
Hmm, apparently I haven't been upgraded to Google Drive. All my links still
say Docs, as well as the URL. Although I do now see this message:

"Google Docs will soon be upgraded to Google Drive"

------
degenerate
I was wondering when Google would tie in their purchase of Zagat.

Now, if only they would save the Zagat brand by restructuring its criteria.
When I saw a Zagat sticker on the outside of a KFC I almost threw up. They
need to remove themselves from the fast food space entirely:
<http://www.zagat.com/fastfood>

~~~
parfe
Your Zagat rated pretentiousness is delicious.

Why shouldn't fast food be rated?

~~~
degenerate
Because there is no differentiating factor between a 5-star steakhouse and a
fast food joint. They need different logos/stickers to display on the outside
window IMO.

~~~
tomkarlo
Zagat already rates everything from the corner burger joint to a steakhouse.
Having the Zagat sticker in the window doesn't mean anything, it's about the
rating.

------
aresant
I've always found the Zagat "30 point" scale to be confusing

I'm surprised to see that it made the cut into Goog's interface for general
consumption:

I've always thought that the Metacritic / RottenTomatoes / etc scoring system
was more intuitive where they show an aggregate professional review score
side-by-side with user reviews:

eg <http://www.metacritic.com/movie/men-in-black-iii>

~~~
CountHackulus
Not to mention the Zagat ratings are often wildly inaccurate. For example, in
my city, they gave the "best French restaurant" title to an overpriced chain,
not to the actualy French restaurant, run by a French chef, that has a 3 month
long waiting list. Having been to both, and to France, the two don't compare,
and yet Zagat doesn't even mention the good place.

Not to mention your very valid point on their "30 point" system which just
plain doesn't make sense. A metacritic type thing would in fact be WAY better.
Also they should add Michelin stars, because those I've at least found to be
reliable.

~~~
qq66
Zagat ratings are often used by travelers, casual diners, etc. If they
included a restaurant with a 3 month waiting list they'd be setting up a lot
of their readers for disappointment.

~~~
jamesbritt
_If they included a restaurant with a 3 month waiting list they'd be setting
up a lot of their readers for disappointment._

Unless they're planning in advance. I'd be kinda pissed if I arrived in a city
and learned there was a kick-ass French restaurant but was not warned to book
in advance when that was a real possibility and I could have done so.

------
warmfuzzykitten
This might be better if G+ had any frickin' idea where I am. None of the
places listed are local.

