Maps

Assessment
Tips and Tricks
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
Confidential
We wish you the best of luck!
The Peroptyx Team
Passing the assessment is achievable.
With some practice and an awareness of some common mistakes which are outlined
here, you
will have what you need to ace your self-assessment.
Many candidates have forgotten or overlooked some key criteria which has ended up
in an
unsuccessful result. We have compiled these top mistakes here for your perusal.
Remember, the guidelines are a reference guide. We have provided an opportunity to
search for
terms and examples during the assessment.
Our support team are on standby if you need us. Please reach out to us via direct
message in your
portal to speak to one of our recruiters.
1
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
User Inside Fresh Viewport
Confidential
When the user is inside the fresh viewport, the location intent becomes the user
location
unless there is an explicit location intent for the query.
Many candidates fail to use the user location as the location intent in this
scenario, a
common mistake would be to rate every result inside the viewport as excellent or
demote results
further away from the user but still inside the fresh viewport to bad.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly:
Guidelines Reference ✍ Section 2.3.2 Implicit Location
Section 5.6. Many Possible Results
2
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
Business Result for Address Query
Confidential
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:
Guidelines Reference ✍ [Link] Results
Remember 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?
3
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
Chain Business Relevance Rating
Confidential
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 Excellent.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly:
Guidelines Reference ✍ 10.6.2. Chain Businesses
4
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
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
modifier
Ratings 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 relevance.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly:
Navigational Chain Business
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 10.6.3.
Chain Business with Location Modifier
5
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
When the user is looking for a specific transit station with a unique name in a
locality that
does not share the name as the transit station, we expect a Navigational result and
rate any
other transit station in that locality as bad for user intent.
For 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 located.
The 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:
Unique Transit Stations
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 5.16.1 Transit Queries
6
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
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
results.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly:
Location or Category Intent
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 5.16.1 Transit Queries
7
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
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 location.
Many 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 disregarded.
Here is an example from the guidelines on how to rate a scenario like that
correctly:
Location Modifier Intent
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 10.6.3.
Chain Business with Location Modifier
8
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
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:
Find the Connection
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 5.1.8. Lack of Connection
9
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
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 modifier.
In 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.
Implicit Location Intent
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 2.3.2 Implicit Location
(Fresh Viewport, User Outside Viewport)
10
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
Results are demoted based on the density of potential results in a given area
Results that are too far away will be rated Bad (Distance/Prominence)
Many candidates fail to do real-world research hence missing that there might be
closer
results to the user or fresh viewport.
Non-Specific Addresses
Guidelines Reference ✍ 10.2. Non-Specific Address
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan
Ensure that the classification is correct in order to rate name accuracy as
correct.
Many candidates fail to make the connection when rating name
accuracy between the name and the correct classification by only taking the name
into
consideration and rating name accuracy correct when it should be demoted when the
classification is incorrect.
The n/a rating should be used for all address type results, including residential
addresses,
streets, localities, and so on.
Many evaluators fail to rate name accuracy as n/a when rating street names,
localities and so on.
Name Accuracy for Address Results
Confidential
Guidelines Reference ✍ 6.1. Name Not Applicable (n/a)
11
Name and Category Rating
Guidelines Reference ✍ 6.7. Final Name and Category Accuracy
Rating (Summary Table)
Rohan
rohan999618@[Link]
Username: Rohan