Address-Result ConnectionWhen a query address and a result address are not exactly the same,

the kind of connection they have depends on their relationship:• Street number is the same in
both query and result but the unit number is different or missing:• If neither address is a street
extension, rate result relevance Good when: The query contains a unit number and the result
does not. The result contains a unit number and the query does not. The query contains one
unit number and the result contains another.• The query is full address including street number
and name and the result is the street nameonly:• Since this result is an unlikely secondary
intent, rate relevance as Acceptable.• Query is for a street [Main Street, Pleasanton, CA] result
is just the locality (Pleasanton, CA).• Rate the result relevance Bad as it does not satisfy the user
intentLack of ConnectionIf the result does not satisfy the user intent either because there is no
relationship between the query intent and the result or because the connection between the
query intent and result will not be immediately obviousto the user, rate the result relevance
[Link] User IntentThe user’s intent can be determined by considering the query, the
user’s location/viewport, and your local knowledge. Sometimes queries are ambiguous or can
have multiple interpretations. In order to determine a query’s primary and secondary intent,
look at the relationship between the query and the result. Ask yourself:• Is there a logical
relationship between the query and the result?• How likely is the user to be looking for this
result given the query and the location intent?Intent Type, Definition, Highest Initial
RatingPrimary Intent Result: satisfies the most obvious and likely user intent (Navigational or
Excellent) Secondary Intent A result: which is less likely to be the user’s intent. Results matching
secondary intent are often not as prominent as the originally queried entity but still satisfy the
intent of the query. Good (User Intent) Unlikely Intent A result: which matches the query but is
very unlikely to be the user’s intent. Acceptable (User Intent) Non-Relevant Intent: There are
issues that make the result useless for the user. Bad (User Intent RecommendedDownload to
read ad-freeTryrating Assessment Results SummaryPDFFrom Scribd10 pages48K viewsTryrating
Assessment Results Summary90% (10) For any Relevance Rating of Good or below, you must
select the appropriate check box(es) to indicate the reason(s)for demotion: User Intent and/or
Distance/Prominence. If both reasons apply, use both [Link] determining intent,
keep in mind: • It is rare that a navigational query will have multiple primary intents.• Rating
one result Navigational and one Excellent within the same set of results is also rare, but possible
(see examples in Navigational Results for Category Queries).• A navigational query will most
often produce one result that satisfies the distinct intent and multiple other results that satisfy a
secondary intent or do not satisfy the intent at all. This means there will be one result rated
Navigational and all other results will be rated Good or Acceptable for secondary intent or Bad
for not satisfying user intent.• Most non-navigational queries will produce results that are rated
from Excellent to Bad.• Since the queries were made by actual users, there will be cases where
a query is gibberish or has no maps intent. Do your best to understand it and see how well the
results fit the user’s intent, but don't be shy about assigning a Bad rating if a result doesn’t fit
Satisfying the user intent is only the first step in the rating process and covers the minimum
requirements for a result to be considered relevant. The rating determined by deciding how well
intentis met is called the Initial Rating. Distance and prominence will be considered next in
order to establish the final rating Once you’ve made an initial rating by establishing that there is
a relationship between the query and the result and determining the intent type, consider the
result’s prominence. The prominence of a feature refers to its popularity, including the number
of people visiting and media sources referencing it. Prominence can vary based on the test
locale and even local knowledge. Consider the following list to get a general idea howto
establish prominence, ordered from the most prominent to the least prominent:• The feature is
known internationally• The feature is known in the country• The feature is known in the
region• The feature is known locally• The feature may not even be known locallyA result that
may not directly appear to be user intent can be promoted for being internationally prominent .
Distance vs. ProminenceOnce you’ve decided how relevant the result is based on user intent,
consider the result in the context of all possible results in the real world. Use the distance to the
user or viewport and the prominence of the result todecide if a demotion should be applied. A
result’s fit to user intent, prominence, and distance should all be relative to the query and the
context around the query. Before deciding whether to demote because of prominence or
distance, it’s important to look at: RecommendedDownload to read ad-freePeroptyx Maps Exam
Preparation GuidePDFFrom Scribd13 pages16K viewsPeroptyx Maps Exam Preparation
Guide100% (3) • The type of area around the result – rural, urban, or suburban• The number of
businesses that satisfy the query• The distance to the user or viewportThe following examples
of multiple query/result pairs will demonstrate how to interpret the relationship between
distance, prominence, and satisfying the user’s intent. The examples address common rating
situations and explain how to evaluate the relevance of the [Link] Possible ResultsSome
queries, like [starbucks], have many results that could satisfy the user. In cases like this, distance
is more important than prominence, so results that are closer to the user’s location/viewport
should be rated higher than results that are farther away. To illustrate the high density of
Starbucks, possible results are shown as purple dotsRate Excellent for Starbucks locations that
are in close proximity to the [Link] Good (Distance/Prominence) Rate Good for
locations that are a bit farther away from the closest relevant locations to the [Link]
Acceptable (Distance/ Prominence) Rate Acceptable for relevant locations that are even farther
away from the user but still inside the [Link] Bad (Distance/Prominence) When
there are many locations close to the user, rate Bad for locations that are significantly farther
away and outside the [Link] Excellent Rate Excellent for Starbucks locations that
are in close proximity to the user, even if they are outside the [Link] Outside Fresh
ViewportWhen a user is outside the viewport, results are expected in or near the viewport. In
cases where there are a large number of possible results inside the viewport, even if they are
not returned for rating (purple dots), rate Bad for those outside [Link] Excellent Rate any
Starbucks within the fresh viewport Excellent when the user is outside the [Link]
Bad (Distance/Prominence): When there are many possible results within the viewport,
includingthose not returned for rating (purple dots), rate Bad for results outside [Link] Possible
ResultsWhen the query has only a few results in the real world, be more lenient when
considering distance. Becausethere are only a few Zara clothing stores in Miami, results for the
query [zara] are demoted more leniently for distance than the many Starbucks locations in the
example [Link] Excellent: Rate Excellent for the closest Zara location, even when
outside the fresh [Link] Good (Distance/Prominence): When there aren’t any
possible results in the fresh viewport, rate Good for locations that are a bit farther away from
the user/viewport. RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeLocal Restaurant Search
ResultsPDFFrom Scribd10 pages11K viewsLocal Restaurant Search Results100% (1) Relevance
Acceptable (Distance/ Prominence): The Zara store is located significantly further away than the
second closest stores and is therefore rated AcceptableFew Possible Results and Greater
Distance Leniency on distance is acceptable when there are only a few possible results for the
query in the requested area. For example, a user close to Berlin queries for [Wartestraße],
which is a street name. There are only four streets in Germany called “Wartestraße” that can
satisfy the user’s intent and all four streets are returnedas results. Because of the limited
number of results, each result’s relevance remains fairly high even over longer
distancesRelevance Excellent: Wartestraße in Gransee is the closest to the user and viewport
and is therefore the [Link] Good (Distance/Prominence): Wartestraße in
Siegen is far away from the user, but is the second closest possible result. Wartestraße in
Wiesbaden is at a similar distance from the user as the one in Siegen and receives the same
[Link] Acceptable (Distance/ Prominence): Wartestraße in Geislingen is the fourth
closest result but significantly farther away. Given all other results and their distances, this
result is rated AcceptableRural AreasResults are often farther away in rural areas, but can still be
considered relevant if there are no reasonable results close to or within the fresh viewport. In a
rural area, generosity can be applied to ratings with respect to distance. The criteria for rating
are similar to the [zara] example in the Few possible results section, but with an emphasis on
distance. Here is an example for the query [american legion] in North [Link]
Excellent: This result is closest to the user based in Bismarck, [Link] Good: The second-
closest result is significantly further north than the closest [Link] Acceptable While
quite remote from the user, this result is still a good option for the user given that there are only
two closer [Link] Acceptable: Like result 3, this location quite far away but is still an
acceptable result given that there are only two significantly closer results available to the
[Link] – User Intent DeviationWhen the location intent and user intent do not allow for a
clear result (because either the user or viewport are in an atypical location, like the middle of
the ocean), rate with a focus on high prominence. For example,the query [Hong Kong] in a test
locale set to en_US with the viewport and user location around Naples, Italy. There is no real
change in rating if the user is inside or outside of the viewport, or if the viewport is fresh or
staleNavigational: The most prominent result is the territory of Hong Kong in Asia. Excellent
Businesses/locations with the same name that are within the viewport or close proximity to the
user and prominent. (This will be rare.) RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeNavigational
Result Evaluation GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd2 pages3.7K viewsNavigational Result Evaluation
GuidelinesNo ratings yet Bad (Distance/ Prominence): Locations that are too far away and less
prominent to be considered relevant should be rated Bad. A restaurant in Rome named “Hong
Kong” should be rated Bad because it is very far away from the user location, which is in
[Link] for User Inside and Outside ViewportThe following two examples show the
differences in rating when a user is inside and outside a fresh viewport. The query is for a chain
business called Great Wolf Lodge found across the United States. The examples show all
possible results within and around the large viewport. In general, when the user is outsidethe
fresh viewport, no result within the viewport is demoted for distance. The only exception to this
is when the viewport is large enough to include an unusually large area, like an entire continent,
and the results within it would not realistically be useful or interesting to a user with this
queryRelevance Excellent: The result is within the fresh viewport and fulfills the primary user
[Link] Good/Acceptable (Distance/Prominence) The result is outside the fresh
viewport. Because there are a limited number of possible results within the viewport and this
one is relatively close, demote to Good or [Link] the user is inside the fresh
viewport, the user's location is used as location intent and results are demoted for
[Link] Excellent This result is amongst the closest possible to the user and is inside
the fresh [Link] Good (Distance/ Prominence) Though still inside the fresh
viewport, this result is significantly farther away from the user location with closer options
[Link] Bad (Distance/ Prominence) This result not only is very far away from the
user, it is also outside the fresh [Link] Acceptable (Distance/Prominence) While
very far away from the user, this Suggestion is still within the fresh viewport and therefore rated
[Link] Transit POIs with the Same NameMany large transit POIs include multiple
means of transportation at the same location. For example, large airports can have metro or
train service within the same location, or train stations can be a hub for trains, metros, and
buses. Other transit POIs at the queried transit POI should be treated as secondary intent with
aninitial rating of Good, but can also be considered Acceptable if the result is less likely to satisfy
the user’s intent. Additional demotions can be applied based on the prominence of the
returned featurePOIs and Transit IntentA non-transit POI can be associated with a transit POI
with the same name. You can establish the relationship between the two entities by using local
knowledge, researching prominence, and understanding how well the result satisfies user
intent. This way you will learn whether the query has a distinct navigational intent or if the
prominence of the two POIs that share a similar name is so strong that both can be the
intentTransit Queries RecommendedDownload to read ad-freePeroptyx Maps Search
Assessment GuidePDFFrom Scribd10 pages11K viewsPeroptyx Maps Search Assessment
Guide100% (2) The criteria described above should be applied to understand the transit
queries. Additionally, if it is determined that a query has a clear navigational intent, all other
results will be Bad (see [12th st oakland bart] example below). If a result is promoted to
Navigational, other results that could potentially satisfy the user intent should be demoted
further for distance and prominence (see [BART daly city] and [stockport station] examples
below). In general, the fewer the results that satisfy the user intent, the farther away the results
can be and still be considered relevant. The more available results that can satisfy the user
intent, the closer they need to beStops vs. StationsA transit stop is a location typically
designated by a bench or covered waiting area, a posted sign, or street markings. Transit
stations, on the other hand, are typically larger areas associated with major structures
including, but not limited to, platforms, ticketing offices, enclosed waiting/seating areas, or
terminal buildings/structures encompassing the transit area. The term “station” is primarily
used to refer to transit locations that are larger and typically a terminal housing multiple routes.
All stations are stops, but not all stops are [Link] all stations are stops, but not all stops
are stations, returning a station for a stop query is ok, but returning a stop when the query is
station should result in a rating of Bad with the User Intent checkbox selected. Try to identify
these corresponding terms in the test locale and understand the relationship [Link]
the category [bus stops], relevance should be based mainly on distance from the user location
or fresh viewport and the physical size of the bus stop. If the result is a small bus stop in a rural
area and the bus stopis among the closest ones to the user’s location intent, it should be rated
Excellent. On the other hand, if the result is a large bus hub that is a bit farther away from the
user, it should still receive an Excellent because ofits size, regardless of the fact that there are
closer, smaller bus stops. Results close to the user should not be demoted because there is a
larger bus stop farther away, instead, the large bus stop should be promoted because of its
importanceParking IntentWhen evaluating [parking] queries, note that:• Free and paid parking
are equally relevant.• Parking time limits do not affect relevance rating. Your rating should not
be changed by thefact that a parking lot is long term, short term, or limited-time (like a two-
hour limit) parking.• Parking for small cars, large cars, RVs, or motorcycles is equally relevant.• If
you can find evidence that a result is for private parking that cannot be used by the
generalpublic, give it a rating of BadRelevance: Service-Level MismatchSometimes a query
specifically requests a certain level of service, which may or may not be reflected in the result.
Common requests include:• Specific stores (e.g. Walmart Supercenter)• Outlet stores (e.g. J.
Crew Factory) RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMaps Exam Query Evaluation
GuidePDFFrom Scribd1 page8.7K viewsMaps Exam Query Evaluation Guide100% (3) When the
query requests a specific level of service which is not reflected in the result, give an initial rating
of Good and demote as necessary depending on how well the result would satisfy the user
[Link] the query requests a type of business with a generic level of service, providing a
result that offers more service than requested still satisfies user intent and should receive an
initial rating of [Link] the query does not specify the type of service, any relevant
result can be rated [Link] Relevance When the Result Status is
PERMANENT_CLOSUREA business/POI that has its status set to PERMANENT_CLOSURE requires
special considerationduring relevance rating. Note: A result without any status indicated should
be rated as usual, including when research indicates the business/POI is closed or does not
exist. There are some situations where you can expect to see results with the status
PERMANENT_CLOSURE and others where such results are not expected. The following sections
will describe how to identify and rate [Link] ApproachRate results with an expected
status of PERMANENT_CLOSURE as if they were open. This means that in most cases the rating
will be either Navigational or Excellent, because even though they are closed, these arethe best
or only results that could ever be returned RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeEvaluating
Name and Address AccuracyPDFFrom Scribd11 pages6.7K viewsEvaluating Name and Address
AccuracyNo ratings yet NameThe Name and Category Accuracy rating is used to evaluate the
accuracy of a Business/POI name. Your final rating will take into consideration both the accuracy
of the Business/POI name and the category assigned to it. Inaccuracies in either or both of
these elements will result in rating [Link]’ll see this rating referred to throughout the
guidelines as both “Name Accuracy” and "Name and Category Accuracy.”Business/POI Name
and Category Accuracy can be rated as:• n/a• Correct• Partially Correct• Incorrect• Can’t
VerifyIf you give a final Name and Category Accuracy rating of Partially Correct or Incorrect, you
may be presented with two checkboxes:• Name Issue• Category issueIf they appear, use one or
both them to select the reason(s) for your rating.N/A NameThe n/a rating should be used for all
address type results, including residential addresses, streets, localities, and so on. Unlike
Business/POI type results, address type results do not actually have a result name. Instead,the
first line of address type results appears as the result title. This is because this field is meant to
present the most relevant part of the address [Link] Name:A business/POI result
name is accurate when it is used on the POI’s official website or on other official resources. Even
if the official website does not use the name, if it is used on other official sources, the name is
correct. Note that the name has to be used to refer to the particular POI. The corporate name
by itself is not automatically the correct namePartially Correct NameA partially correct name
differs from the official versions but can still be recognized by the user. Partially correct names
can include minor and moderate misspellings, service level mismatches, and missing or
unnecessary name parts, including holding names/corporate structures. When the business
name on the storefront does not include the corporate status (Ltd., Inc., etc.) seen in the result,
it is partially [Link] and Moderate Misspellings and Missing or Extra Words Consider
names partially correct when they contain issues that don’t prevent the user from identifying
the business:• Name contains repeated, redundant, or missing information or parts• Incorrect
or missing punctuation or special characters RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMilky Way
Part 1: Location Intent GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd9 pages4.6K viewsMilky Way Part 1: Location
Intent GuidelinesNo ratings yet • Unnecessary or missing spaces• Unexpected use of
lower/upper case and ALL CAPS letters• Acronyms are often expected in ALL CAPS: YMCA, TGIF•
Minor and moderate misspellings that don’t influence the user’s understanding. See your
Country-Specific guidelines for more information on misspellings.• Mix of expected languages in
the result title. Expected languages are the languages of the query, test locale, or region, or of
an official business nameIncorrect NameAn incorrect result name is one that can’t be
recognized because of severe misspelling or ambiguous or unnecessary/missing parts in the
name. Consider names incorrect when they contain issues including:• Severe misspellings that
prevent the user from identifying the business because of:• Change in meaning• Misspelling
that results in an entirely different word or gibberish• Holding names that are completely
different than the recognized name• Unnecessary or missing parts in the name that prevent the
user from recognizing the business• Slang and inappropriate language• Using the previous
name of the same entity that is not a variation of the current name and therefore cannot be
identifiedNote: If a result name is incorrect, the final Name and Category Accuracy rating will
always be Incorrect, even if the category is correct. PIN ACCURACY Best Available Evidence Pin
rating for most features found under rooftops is based on the best available evidence for that
feature's location. That is, the more evidence that can be found to verify a feature’s location,
the more precise the pin’s location must be in order to be rated Perfect. This is true whether or
not the feature's address includes a unit number, because the goal is to find the location of the
feature. If street imagery or other strong evidence can be found to confirm a feature’s specific
location under a shared rooftop, only that location will be considered Perfect. If a shared
rooftop can be identified but there’s no strong evidence to confirm the feature’s specific
location under it, the entire rooftop will be considered Perfect. If several rooftops share an
address and there’s no strong evidence to confirm which rooftop the Feature is under, all
rooftops will be considered Can’t [Link]: This general pin rating rule does not apply to
transit POIs, which have their own pin rating rules Approximate: The result is a business (or an
address) under a connected rooftop with multiple street numbers under it. This result shares a
parking lot with other [Link]: If there are any other buildings within the shared parking
lot that are not connected to the Perfect location, they will also be rated Approximate
RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeTelus Map Relevance GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd1
page4.3K viewsTelus Map Relevance GuidelinesNo ratings yet Little Guide Line When the user is
inside the fresh viewport, the location intent becomes the user location unless there is
anexplicit location intent for the query. Many candidates fail to use the user location as the
location intent inthis scenario, a common mistake would be to rate every result inside the
viewport as excellent or demoteresults further away from the user but still inside the fresh
viewport to bad. Here is an example from theguidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly: User Inside Fresh Viewport When the user is inside the viewport, consider all possible
results, including real-world results not returned for rating (purple dots), and demote by
distance from the user. Query: starbucksUser and fresh viewport in San Francisco, CA Result,
Rating and Explanation Starbucks 865 Market Street ① Relevance ExcellentRate Excellent for
Starbucks locations that are in close proximity to the user Starbucks 170 O’Farrell St ②
Relevance Good (Distance/Prominence)Rate Good for locations that are a bit farther away from
the closest relevant locations to the user 3 Starbucks 264 Kearny StRelevance Acceptable
(Distance/ Prominence)Rate Acceptable for relevant locations that are even farther away from
the user but still inside the viewport.4 Starbucks 580 California StRelevance Bad
(Distance/Prominence)When there are many locations close to the user, rate Bad for locations
that are significantly farther away and outside the viewport. Starbucks 140 Mason Street ⑤
Relevance ExcellentRate Excellent for Starbucks locations that are in close proximity to the user,
even if they are outside the viewport. RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeBART and Transit
Station Query RatingsPDFFrom Scribd59 pages2.9K viewsBART and Transit Station Query
Ratings100% (1) Business Result for Address Query When the query is an address query for a
street and the returned result is a business on the same street the user was looking for, that
result does not satisfy the user intent. Many candidates fail to demote such results to bad due
to user intent and instead rate relevance as good or higher when it should be demoted to bad.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that correctly: Query
stevens creek blvd cupertinoUser and fresh viewport inCupertino, CA Result [Link] Lamb Hot
Pot19062 Stevens Creek Blvd,Cupertino, CA, 95014Relevance: Bad (User Intent) The query is for
a street and the result is a specific business on that street. This specific result is unlikely to
satisfy the broad intent of the query.2.19062 Stevens Creek BlvdCupertino, CA,
95014Relevance: Bad (User Intent) The result includes a street number when the query is for a
street, making this result toospecific for the more general [Link] to continue to ask
yourself the question - could this result be what the user is looking for? If I received this as a
result, would I be satisfied? Chain Business Relevance Rating A query for a chain business is
generally not considered an explicit query and is therefore not eligible a for Navigational rating
unless the query contains a location modifier that points to a single unique location. Many
candidates rate these results with a relevance rating of Navigational which is considered
incorrect as the highest rating a chain business can receive is [Link] is an example from
the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that correctly: Query [whole foods] User and
Viewport: User and fresh viewport in Irvine, California RecommendedDownload to read ad-
freeMaps Search Evaluation GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd8 pages3.5K viewsMaps Search
Evaluation GuidelinesNo ratings yet User Intent: The user is clearly looking for the grocery chain
Whole Foods close to their location or at least within the [Link] there a Navigational Result
for this Query? NoResult Whole Foods, The District, 2847 Park Ave, Tustin, CA 92782 Category:
Grocery ① Is there a Navigational Result for this Query? NoRatings and Explanation Relevance
Excellent Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy ApproximateReason:
This is a Whole Foods store within the user’s viewport as well as the closest Whole Foods
location to Irvine. The pin is dropped within the shared parking lot of the result, making it
Approximate. Result Whole Foods Fashion Island, 415 Newport Center Dr, Newport Beach, CA
92660 Category: Grocery ② Ratings and Explanation Relevance Good (Distance/Prominence)
Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy Perfect Reason: This is a Whole
Foods store in the same metro area, but is outside the user’s viewport Result Whole Foods Aliso
Village Shopping Center, 23932 Aliso Creek Rd, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Category: ③
GroceryRelevance Acceptable (Distance/ Prominence) Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy
Correct Pin Accuracy PerfectReason: This is a Whole Foods store in a neighboring city, outside of
the viewport and a considerable distance away. As such this result is less relevant to the user
and is rated Acceptable RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMaps Search Evaluation
Guidelines 2024PDFFrom Scribd5 pages1.6K viewsMaps Search Evaluation Guidelines 2024No
ratings yet Navigational Chain Business If the query for a chain business includes a location
modifier that points to a single unique branch of that business, that specific branch can be
eligible for a Navigational rating. When there are multiple results available for the location
modifier, the highest possible rating for all results will be Excellent. Remember: User and
viewport location should always be ignored when there is a location modifierRatings must
always be based on possible real-world results Many candidates fail to either demote results
outside the location modifier or are too generous with the relevance rating. They either forget
to check real-world results that did not appear on the map or fail to do enough research to
understand the boundaries of the location modifier before rating [Link] is an example
from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that correctlyQuery: Starbucks san francisco
User and Viewport: User and fresh viewport in San Francisco, CAUser Intent: The user is seeking
a Starbucks in a specific location. The fresh viewport and user location can be ignored since the
user has an area in mind for results. Because there are so many Starbucks within the named
area, results outside it are rated Bad .Is there a Navigational Result for this Query? NoResults:
Starbucks, 2165 Polk St, San Francisco, CA 94102 Category: Coffee ① Ratings and Explanation
Relevance Excellent Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy
PerfectReason: This result is one of many Starbucks in the specified location, San Francisco, and
is rated Excellent. All results within San Francisco are eligible for the highest possible initial
rating of Excellent. All the data for the result is correctResults: STARBUCKS 1231 Market St, San
Francisco, CA 94103 Category: Coffee ② Ratings and Explanation Relevance Excellent Name
Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy PerfectReason: This result is one of
many Starbucks in the specified location, San Francisco, and is rated Excellent. All results within
San Francisco are eligible for the highest possible initial rating of Excellent.
RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeUser Intent and Relevance in Maps SearchPDFFrom
Scribd43 pages1.8K viewsUser Intent and Relevance in Maps SearchNo ratings yet The
STARBUCKS name is written in capital letters. Because this is how the business refers to itself
onstorefront signs, it is Correct. The address is Correct and the Perfect pin lands on the correct
rooftopResults: Starbucks 1555 40th St. Emeryville, CA 94608 Category: Coffee ③ Ratings and
Explanation Relevance Bad (Distance/Prominence) Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy
Correct Pin Accuracy ApproximateReason: This Starbucks is outside of the boundaries of the
specified location and should be rated Bad since there are so many Starbucks to choose from in
San Francisco. The name and address are Correct. Using the best available evidence — in this
case, street imagery — the location of the Starbucks under the rooftop can be found. Since the
pin falls on the correct rooftop, but not in the correct location, it is rated Approximate Starbucks
601 Westlake Center, Daly City, CA 94015 Category: Coffee ④ Results: Ratings and Explanation
Relevance Bad (Distance/Prominence) Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin
Accuracy PerfectReason: This Starbucks is outside of the boundaries of the specified location
and should be rated Bad since there are so many Starbucks to choose from in San Francisco. All
the data for the result is correctResults: Starbucks 12 Manor Plaza, Pacifica, CA 94044 Category:
Coffee ⑤ Results: Ratings and Explanation Relevance Bad (Distance/Prominence) Name
Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy ApproximateReason : This Starbucks is
outside of the boundaries of the specified location and should be rated Bad since there are so
many Starbucks to choose from in San Francisco. The pin drops within the Half n' Half rule
boundaries of the shared parking lot RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeFrequently Asked
Questions - Maps SearchPDFFrom Scribd5 pages4.5K viewsFrequently Asked Questions - Maps
Search100% (1) Unique Transit Stations When the user is looking for a specific transit station
with a unique name in a locality that does not share thename as the transit station, we expect a
Navigational result and rate any other transit station in that locality as bad for user [Link]
example, let’s take the transit stations in San Franciso - BART stations. There is a unique BART
station name that is not the same as the name of the place where the station is [Link]
expectation for results returned for a different BART station that does not satisfy the user intent
is to be demoted to Bad when rating relevance. Many evaluators fail to demote results that do
not satisfy the user intent. Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like
that correctly Query 12th st Oakland bart] User and viewport in California Result : 12th St.
Oakland Station Oakland, CA Rating and Explanation: Relevance NavigationalReason: The query
is for a specific BART station with a unique name that is not the same as the name of the locality
where the station is found. (Compare this to the examples below). This result matches the
query exactly and fully satisfies the user’s intent for this specific station . Result : 19th St.
Oakland Station Oakland, CA Rating and Explanation: Relevance Bad (User Intent Issue)Reason:
The query intent is for a specific BART station with a unique name that is not the same as
thename of the place where the station is located. The result returned is for a different BART
station and does not satisfy the user intent. This result should receive a rating of Bad Location or
Category Intent When the query is for a transit station with a location intent, keep in mind that
it may be a transit station with a location modifier, or potentially the user looking for a transit
station in that location (category intent).Many candidates fail to make that connection due to a
lack of research and failing to make the connection between when the query can be interpreted
as both a category (i.e. Locality + Station) or as an explicit location, (Direct Match Name).Results
inside the intended locality should get a high rating while results outside the locality should be
demoted accordingly based on distance and the number of available [Link] is an example
from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that correctly: Query: stockport station User
and viewport in Stockport, England Result: Stockport Station Stockport, EnglandRelevance
Navigational RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMap Search Query Relevance
GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd16 pages3.3K viewsMap Search Query Relevance GuidelinesNo
ratings yet Reason: The query intent is for a station in Stockport. Research shows that there are
several stations in Stockport, but only one named Stockport Station, so this result fully satisfies
the user’s intentQuery: Davenport Station Stockport, England & Heaton Chapel Station
Stockport, EnglandRelevance ExcellentReason: The query intent is for a station in Stockport.
There is one station with a name that matches the Navigational exactly, which receives the
Navigational rating. All other stations within the queried locality should receive ExcellentQuery:
Burnage Station Manchester, England Relevance Good (Distance/Prominence)Reason: This
station is just outside of the requested locality, in a neighboring locality. Even though thestation
is outside of the requested locality, it provides a choice of stations in the area for the user. The
fewer choices there are available, the farther away the results can be and still be relevant. This
result is demoted due to distance. Location Modifier Intent When the query is for a chain-type
business with a location modifier attached, results are expected within the given location
modifier and user/viewport position are to be disregarded. In cases where few results exist in
the location modifier, results outside of the modifier can still be viable options based on the
distance from the intended [Link] candidates fail to disregard the user and viewport
location and rate results within or near them with a high relevance rating when they should be
[Link] is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that correctly:
Query: Aldi waco tx User and Viewport: User and fresh viewport in Houston, TX User Intent: The
user asked for a specific chain business in a specific location. The fresh viewport can be ignored
since the user has a specific area in mind for results. Because there are very few stores within
the specified area, results outside it are gradually [Link] there a Navigational Result for this
Query? YesResults: ALDI 1220 N Valley Mills Dr, Waco, TX 76710 Category: Grocery ① Ratings
and Explanation Relevance Navigational Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin
Accuracy Approximate RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMap Query Result Quality
GuidelinesPDFFrom Scribd12 pages3.1K viewsMap Query Result Quality GuidelinesNo ratings
yet Reason: ALDI is a well-known chain business. Research confirms that the location modifier in
the query narrows possible results to a single unique location. This is the only location eligible
for a Navigational rating. The pin drops within the shared parking [Link]: ALDI 3310 S 31st
St, Temple, TX 76502 Category: Grocery ② Ratings and Explanation Relevance Good
(Distance/Prominence) Name Accuracy Correct Address Accuracy Correct Pin Accuracy
PerfectReason: Although this result is not in Waco, research shows that, unlike the many
Starbucks in San Francisco, there are very few Aldi stores in the Waco area. That is why this
nearby result should be demoted -2 for distance from the highest possible initial rating of
Navigational and rated Good. The pin drops on the edge of the appropriate rooftop and can be
rated PerfectResults: ALDI 3623 W State Highway 31, Corsicana, TX Category: Grocery ③
Ratings and Explanation Relevance Acceptable (Distance/ Prominence) Name Accuracy Correct
Address Accuracy Incorrect – Postal Code Pin Accuracy PerfectReason: Although this result is
not in Waco, research shows that, unlike the many Starbucks in the San Francisco example
above, there are very few Aldi stores in the Waco area. This result has been demoted -3 from
the highest possible initial rating of Navigational to Acceptable because it is significantly farther
from the area of expected results. The postal code, which is a mandatory address component, is
missing from the result address. Find the Connection If the result does not satisfy the user
intent because there is no relationship between the query intent and the result, or because the
connection between the query intent and result will not be immediately obvious to the user,
rate the result relevance Bad. Many candidates fail to do enough research to understand the
user intent and what the result returned is. Here is an example from the guidelines on how to
rate a scenario like that correctly User Query: airport Result: Santa Cruz Boardwalk Santa Cruz
Type of Connection: None RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMap Evaluation Guidelines
2024PDFFrom Scribd2 pages3.7K viewsMap Evaluation Guidelines 2024100% (1) Description:
Does not satisfy user intent: Research shows that there is no connection between the query and
the result. Rate Bad . User Query: Raging Waters 2333 South White Rd San Jose Result: 2333
South White Rd San Jose Type of Connection: None Description: Does not satisfy user intent:
Result is for the correct address, but does not include the business named in the query, so users
will have no way of knowing if this is truly connected to the business or not. Rate Bad. User
Query: Raging Waters Result: 2333 South White Rd San Jose Type of Connection: None
Description: Does not satisfy user intent: Query is the name of a business and result is for the
correct address, but does not include the business name. Users will have no way of knowing
whether or not this address is connected to the business they asked for. Rate Bad. User Query:
valley fair mall Result: Macy’s 2801 Stevens Creek Blvd, Santa Clara Type of Connection: None
Description: Does not satisfy user intent: Result is for a store, not a mall. This store is inside the
requested mall, but does not satisfy the intent of the query, which is the whole mall. Rate Bad
Implicit Location Intent If the user is outside of the viewport and the viewport is fresh, and the
query is for a chain business and a result matches the query intent perfectly, we use the fresh
viewport as the location [Link] cases like this, ratings should be based on the fresh
viewport and results outside the viewport should be demoted for distance if there are closer
real-world options. Many candidates fail to use the fresh viewport as the location modifier. Non-
Specific Addresses For queries where the location intent is not explicitly stated in the query, you
must infer the location intent from the user’s viewport and the user’s location. One difficulty in
evaluating address queries has to do with partial addresses, which could refer to multiple
locations. Generally, for partial addresses, users are looking for the location closest to their
position or within / near the fresh viewport. Results that are farther away from an ideal result
but can potentially satisfy the user’s intent can be rated as high as Good (Distance/Prominence)
Results are demoted based on distance RecommendedDownload to read ad-freeMaps Search
Evaluation Guidelines 2025PDFFrom Scribd99 pages2.2K viewsMaps Search Evaluation
Guidelines 2025100% (3)
quality inn Monterey, CA, United States