HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Discussion

Introducing Places

  • j

There's a new feature on the boards that I hope you like. We're calling it Places.

Often there's a discussion about a place and somewhere down the thread somebody asks, "Where is this place anyway?" Now there's an easy way to explain.

Here's how it works: When you write a post, you'll notice a button at the bottom that says "Link to a Place". So if you've mentioned a particular restaurant (or shop or bar) in your post, you can then type in the name and as much of the address as you know, click Search, and some choices of listings will come up. Choose the right one, and then click “Add a Place.”

What happens then is kind of magical: the name of the place comes up below your post and on the right side of the page on which the post appears, and that name is linked to a page about that place that's been automatically created-- a stub page, in the language of wikis. (You’ll need to refresh the page to see the links.)

And it is, in fact, a wiki. Anyone can edit the information on that page. We hope that you'll continue to update the page with information about hours, atmosphere, favorite dishes-- anything that will help the Chowhounds find and learn about the places you're discussing. The page will include links back to the threads that mention the place. For example, I started a thread http://www.chow.com/topics/417322 asking where to buy Spanish wine in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I linked to the two places I knew.

One of those places is K&L Wine Merchants. I followed the K&L link to its stub page http://www.chow.com/places/9 and then added some information there about the place.

How is the content of these Places pages different than a topic? Well, discussion is, of course, opinion. We'd like to keep the wikis to an NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi... as Wikipedia puts it-- that is, a neutral point of view. This is the spot for information about what's on the menu, who's in the kitchen, tips on where to park-- any information that will enhance others' experience.

Ultimately, we hope that we'll develop the most comprehensive database on the Web of places to find deliciousness. (Or places to avoid.) The particular expertise of Chowhounds means that the information here will likely be informed, up to date, and helpful. At least that's the idea. And then the information about various places can be easily grouped and organized, much the way the Digest now summarizes posts.

Of course, whether this feature is useful depends on your interest. We hope that you'll find it promising enough to spend the time inputting information about the places you discuss. And the feature, labeled Beta, truly is in Beta form. The stub pages will grow and change. We're waiting to hear your thoughts, including what information you’d like to see added to the Places pages. We’ve got a thread started at http://www.chowhound.com/topics/41758....

And for more information, please check out the FAQ: http://www.chowhound.com/faq#linkmean

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Wow - this looks really cool.

    Question: Does the wiki entry for a place pick up any existing posts automatically? I'm thinking of several extensive reports - such as Chowdowns - that would be very helpful in a summary of this type.

    Or does a place only know about the new posts that include the actual "link to a place" feature?

    Anne

    24 Replies
    1. re: AnneInMpls

      Anne, I don't think it picks up any existing posts. I just added a "wiki" for Conny's Creamy Cone, for instance (which has certainly had prior posts), and it only picks up the one I specifically linked in. I suppose you could either cut and paste a "permalink" to an old thread into the body of the wiki, OR, you could resurrect an old post for the specific purpose of adding a "link" to the place so that post will now appear with the wiki.

      ~TDQ

      1. re: The Dairy Queen

        TDQ, thanks for the info. Perhaps the next time I'm avoiding work, I'll buzz around the MSP places and add some links back to the more enduring threads/posts. (Although, for the sake of continued employment, I'd better not do too much of this.)

        Thanks,
        Anne

        P.S. It was your very post - with the Places links to Connie's and the New Hong Kong Kitchen - that let me know about this nifty new feature.

        1. re: The Dairy Queen

          TDQ, you've got it exactly. It doesn't pick up existing posts; you have to resurrect an old post (love that language) and create a link. We talked about this for a while, and we concluded that the only way to create reliable links was to have people choose the names & addresses of the places in question (or type it in themselves). Any kind of automated system would just make too many mistakes, especially when there are so many places with the same or similar names.

          1. re: jane

            I'd like to go back and add places information to all of my posts. Or maybe just the ones I've made since I registered. Either way, that will bump a couple dozen threads up to the top of the list for purely administrative purposes. If several other people started doing it I can imagine that new posts might get drowned in the torrent of revisions.

            Is it okay if I do what I have in mind? It would be nice if I could add places metadata to my old posts without having to create a new reply. Would it be possible to allow us to go back and edit our old posts and replies so that we can add this data more unobtrusively?

            1. re: stuart

              Hi Stuart, actually, I did that for a couple of posts on the Midwest board, but I realized it had the exact effect you're describing--that is, bumping old posts without adding any new chow content. Now I'm just plopping in the Places link into a thread every time someone else adds some chow content--the thread's popped to the top anyway, right? That way you don't annoy all those folks who use hot posts. And, while I'm at it, I try to add links for all of the places mentioned in the thread.

              Also, I've found you can link old threads into the "Local Knowledge" section of the wiki, which is really helpful if there's an older thread about the place that is really helpful (for instance, as I've done here for Little Szechuan):

              http://www.chowhound.com/places/86

              If you want the link to be "clickable" you have to follow this syntax very specifically:

              "Description of link--in my example Chris Mitras Little Szechuan is back thread":www.whateverurl.com

              The description has to be in quotes, then a colon, then the url. No spaces.

              You can do this linking of old threads into the "Local knowledge" section of the wiki without having to bump a bunch of old threads. It's not ideal, I know, but it's a pretty good workaround, I think.

              I hope this all made sense!

              ~TDQ

              1. re: The Dairy Queen

                Thanks. That's very helpful information.

                I still think it would be helpful to allow hounds to add places to the database independent of posting. I have another idea that might be just as good and would certainly be easier to implement. What about a sticky thread in each board designated specifically for adding previously discussed restaurants to the the places database. That way we can quickly build up the places database without flooding all the forums. Users would be encouraged to reply in the thread and add places for all the places that they've discussed and also to add links to the relevant existing threads.

                It doesn't really even have to be sticky. Would it be cool if I started such a thread on my own?

                1. re: stuart

                  Stuart, we definitely want to be able to make it work so that you can add a Place without bumping up an old thread. That's something the engineers are working on. In the meantime, the Places thread is an interesting idea....offhand, I can't think of the downside. I guess we'll see.

                  1. re: jane

                    I've tried to use the 'link to place' while in edit mode for a previous post, and it doesn't appear to be functioning. Just brings me down to the last comment of the post. Could somebody please point me in the right direction? Thank you!

                    1. re: tochipotle

                      Unfortunately, you can't link to a place while in edit mode. You have to include the link in the post the first time around. Someone has suggested changing that in this thread: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/41758...

                      ~TDQ

                      1. re: The Dairy Queen

                        I tried to put in links while I was composing a message and gave up. Is there a simple way to do it (simpler than what's already been described in this thread)?

                        1. re: Pan

                          Pan, yes!

                          For instance, when you open up a reply window, to post a comment about restaurant X in St. Paul, MN, you'll see in the lower left hand corner a link that says "Link to a place BETA." Click on that and a little window will pop up where you can type the "Name of Place" (restaurant X) and "Location" (St. Paul, MN), then "click search." That will bring up (hopefully) the name and address of restaurant X. Click the radio dial button next to it, then click on the orange "post my reply" button as usual. What that does is add a places "link" into your post.

                          Now, that you've created that link you (or ANYONE else) can click on that "places" link to bring up a wiki where you can then add all kinds of interesting info about the restaurant--secret menus, best dishes, ordering tips, etc. The wiki, to me, is what's valuable about the places feature. That also creates a link in it to the thread you just created, and all of the threads that ultimately get "linked" using the search feature.

                          What I was talking about earlier in this thread is adding a "clickable link" (to older threads discussing this restaurant) to the wiki itself because it seemed lousy to bump a bunch of old threads for the specific purpose of adding a link...

                          I hope that helps.

                          ~TDQ

                          1. re: The Dairy Queen

                            Right - you just have to be careful not to click on the link before you've posted, because if you do (without right clicking on the link and choosing "open new browser), it will erase your message when the page for that Place is opened in your browser. So, you add the link, post, and then click on the link to edit it.

                            1. re: MMRuth

                              MMRuth, this is the part I'm not having problems with as long as the "place" is found in the database. Very confusing!

                              ~TDQ

                              1. re: The Dairy Queen

                                I've not run into a "place" not in the database yet - but I've not been adding as many as the folks on the MSP board (smile)!

                                1. re: MMRuth

                                  I just tested this - added a new (fake) place without being taken away from the page I'm posting on. If this were a real place, I'd now click on the link in my post above, and put in the relevant information. I agree that this isn't ideal, but am I missing something?

                                  1. re: MMRuth

                                    Yeah, I guess I should describe more. It's not that the address is new--Google maps has the address-- it's that the restaurant located at that address is new. For instance, we have a "hot" new place in St. Paul called Ngon Bistro. There used to a restaurant at that same address called Pho Anh. When you try to add a link to Ngon Bistro, the search finds Pho Anh at that address. Here's where the problem arises for me--if you start trying to fiddle around with the wiki to change the name, etc before you've hit the orange "post my reply" button. you might accidentally lose the text your post if you are flipping around to a bunch of new windows...

                                    The important thing to remember is that you can always (or, within 2 hours anyway) edit the commentary in your post using the "edit" feature. But you can only add a places link the initial time you make your post. So, do the link first, then your text. You can even "edit" your text in if you're nervous.

                                    ~TDQ

                                    1. re: MMRuth

                                      What happened if I tried to link to the place you created...?

                                      -----
                                      mine
                                      New York, NY, USA, New York, NY

                                      1. re: Chris VR

                                        seems to work! will try another that I created...

                                        -----
                                        Speed's Hotdog Wagon
                                        54 Newmarket Square, Boston, MA 02118

                        2. re: jane

                          That would be much appreciated. The bumping up of old threads just to add a link without any other new information is starting to be annoying.

                          1. re: Melanie Wong

                            We hear you. It definitely cools down the hot posts. More news as I know it...

                      2. re: The Dairy Queen

                        Rather than paste URLs of topics into Local Knowledge, I just add a link to the old topic.

                        1. re: Robert Lauriston

                          Yes, but you have to bump up the old topic in order to do that, right? And, unless you're adding some new content along with the link, it's kind of annoying to the hot posts users, or just disppointing/confusing when people see the old topic bounce to the top, and open it hoping for something riveting and insightful as they have come to expect from Robert Lauriston, and discover, instead, that all you've done is add a places link.

                          ~TDQ

                          1. re: The Dairy Queen

                            That's a temporary situation. As discussed elsewhere in this topic, they're planning to make it possible to link a place to a topic without bumping it.

              2. Is there a way to browse the list of places, without going to an individual place's info via a link in a post? I can figure out the clunky manual way--just adding numbers to the end of the URL. But is there a link to places on the top menus somewhere that I'm missing?

                12 Replies
                1. re: rose water

                  I've been wondering that as well ....

                  1. re: rose water

                    The short answer is not yet. We do want to create local hubs, where you can search for places, look at new lists of places, see what's been recently added, etc. But we wanted to launch in stages, see what worked and what didn't (and as you can see, there are a lot of things to tweak). Next come the hubs! And if you've got any thoughts on what you'd like to see on those local hub pages, please do send 'em on over. Thanks.

                    1. re: jane

                      You should try to get some kind of search going quickly. Without it, Places isn't really very helpful.

                      At the very least, until you provide a search function, a list of Places noted in a specific Board would help greatly.

                      1. re: Carole

                        Yes, I know that it's frustrating that unless you're engaged in a thread, you can't get to Places. The engineering team is very close to a separate search function -- soon you'll be able to search places separately the way you can search posts separately. After that, we'll be working on a Places hub, with a link on the nav bar, so you can get into it that way, too.

                        1. re: jane

                          I do hope though that we as users don't using Places as a default. Meaning, it is a great and useful tool, but if people start searching Places, rather than the boards themselves, I think they may well be losing out on a lot of tips, since posters may well post on a place, but not add a "Place" for it.

                          1. re: MMRuth

                            Actually, I think that's the value of "Places" in reaching out to a bigger audience than just chowhounds. Chowhounds want to scour every last word for tips and devour the message boards. However, think about how many times we read a whiney post from someone who doesn't deal with piles of information well that it's just too hard to read threads. I know I get plenty of emails like that asking for advice (that I just ignore and delete) because its too taxing and time-consuming to read the boards (yeah, like I should write an executive summary for those babies). I think Places will serve that type of reader well, who is willing to just take information that is spoonfed without having to be discerning in who to believe or with more detail. At least the source will be relatively chowhound-ish, depending on which threads are linked up or what the wiki summary says.

                            1. re: Melanie Wong

                              I see your point, though I guess my other concern, which I did not articulate, is that posters will put information into the Places' wikis, and not into posts. Hopefully I will be proven wrong about this.

                              1. re: MMRuth

                                That's a concern worth thinking about as well. As it stands now, Places isn't interactive, so for myself, I'm less inclined to leave any opinions (e.g., favorite dishes) there. The more fact-based stuff, such as credit card, hours, etc. I will fill in if I'm sure of them, and hope that future readers will correct them as needed when they change. It does provide a prompt of sorts for some of the details that some chowhounds have advocated for in the past for desired posting format, so i guess that's helpful.

                                I'm actually curtailing my linking to Places, unless I have something meaty to say about the spot or provide a link in my posting to a report. When this was in beta, I had thought the intent was to link up to substantial threads discussing a restaurant to create a "favorites" for community viewing. As it seems to be evolving now, the threads that are accumulating might have little substance to them at all, just a "go there" kind of rec for the place, and I don't see the value in archiving them under Places. Someone looking at the linked threads in Places as a shortcut isn't getting a reader-nominated set of links that I'd hoped this feature and over time the set might not be that different than what the search engine would turn up but with less organization in terms of chronology or relevance. Or maybe there's some hidden value there that I'm not seeing.

                                1. re: Melanie Wong

                                  To me the main benefit is that it saves time. Enter the Web site URL once and from then on it takes only a few seconds.

                                  Eventually I expect geographical search and mapping features that should be very helpful.

                                  For restaurants with search-proof names, such as Two or Taste, the topic links are very helpful.

                                  1. re: Robert Lauriston

                                    Total agreement that those features of Places are great and will grow more useful in time. My problem is the useless of the "In the Boards" section of Places as it stands now.

                        2. re: Carole

                          Well, it's useful for one thing -- when you link to a place, you won't get any more complaints from cranks saying "what's the address of this place!? This post is WORTHLESS without an address!", because they're too lazy to do a Google search.

                          It is actually quite nice to have the address, map, and phone number right there. Too bad almost no one on the DC board seems to be using it.

                          1. re: alopez

                            I think a lot of people don't know about it- I found that when I started doing a bunch of links, I saw other people start doing it too.

                    2. EDIT: I just realized this is covered on Tech Talk. Never mind.

                      Any idea what to do about multiple Places posts with slight name variations? The Boston board now has to Places links to Sultan's Kitchen and Sultan's Kitchen Express--same joint. Given the Boston penchant for making restaurant names possessive (e.g., Place's or Places when the real name is Place) I can see problems arising.

                        1. Jane,

                          "Places" is a terrific idea. It's pretty clear where we are heading with this feature and the potential is tremendous. Some of the pitfalls have been elucidated but I think all can be overcoming with clever programming and some enterprise on the part of us Hounds.

                          3 Replies
                          1. re: Dave Feldman

                            Dave, I hope so. I've been noticing that many Places spring up without any extra information (what we're calling "local knowledge"), and I'm wondering if the wiki format is somehow uninviting. But I also see that some enterprising hounds have dived right in, so maybe it's just going to take time. The feedback -- pitfalls and all -- is hugely helpful.

                            1. re: jane

                              I think the wiki format is fantastic. I think it just need a chance. I hope it takes off. It seems like the whole idea of places is still in the early adoption phase. In fact, I'm the only one in Cleveland who seems to be using it.

                              1. re: jane

                                The way Places is formatted now, I think the main problem is that to fill in info in Places means that you have to do twice as much "work," and as Melanie mentions, above, it isn't as much fun to put in addresses and links as to talk about chow. But I don't see much downside to it, and plenty of upside.

                            2. I'm finding that I might want to link to a place in two different ways. First I might want to provide some detailed information and link the post to the relevant restaurant. Obviously, I would use the the new places feature in this case. But sometimes I want to point out a restaurant without really adding any new information. Linking to the entry in the places database is a very convenient way to do that. On the other hand, it's not really helpful to have that post associated with the restaurant. The restaurant's entry in the database will be full of posts that don't really say anything.

                              My thought was to explicitly tie a post to the places database only when I'm adding new information. When I'm just interested in pointing to the places entry itself then I plan to add a link manually. Does any one have any other ideas on how to handle this?

                              Incidentally, this is one more reason why it's important to be able to search places. Currently, it's somewhat of a hassle to find that link.

                              10 Replies
                              1. re: stuart

                                Engineering already said they're working on adding the ability to add a link to a topic without having to add a new post.

                                1. re: Robert Lauriston

                                  Here are some questions/ideas/comments:

                                  1. Will it be possible to bookmark Places in the future.

                                  2. A drop down box with a range of prices rather than a free-form box for "Main dish costs around" would be easier.

                                  Even for places I know well, I can't think what to put in there. I like seeing $ for under $10 ...etc.

                                  3. Atmosphere isn't useful because there is the free-form option of putting that info "Local Knowledge"

                                  4. Some info that would be helpful at a high level
                                  Good for groups
                                  Good for kids
                                  Parking options / availability

                                  1. re: kare_raisu

                                    You can bookmark Places already. You mean "Favorite"?

                                      1. re: Robert Lauriston

                                        Wait, you can bookmark a Place? What do you mean by that--do you mean, in your browser? Or, is it a site driven thing?
                                        ~TDQ

                                  2. re: stuart

                                    stuart, I share your concern about the database filling up with linked posts/threads that don't say anything. I had been using it to provide an address when making a quick rec, but that builds up nothingness in the database.

                                    Don't know if this has been suggested elsewhere, but in addition to being able to add a Places link without cumulating that thread in the database, would it be possible to remove some of the threads that have been linked in Places but still have the address and places link appear in the thread? Some of the threads that are building up on each Places thread don't have any information about the particular restaurant and are a complete waste of time to open.

                                    Some of the Places pages are archived in google. You can find them using site:chowhound.com inurl:places and then the name of the restaurant.

                                    1. re: Melanie Wong

                                      Well, I see what you are saying Melanie, but I see Places as having value in two different ways. It would be nice to have it as a nexus of links to great threads that discuss it, but I think that I'd rather have the Search Engine serve that function. Hmmm, maybe each wiki could have a link to the the search engine results for that restaurant/board. For example if it's this wiki, http://www.chowhound.com/places/307, there'd be a link on that page to this search: http://www.chowhound.com/search?searc...

                                      Here's an idea though, I wonder if the Engineers could build in a feature that allows users to "rate" the usefulness of the threads on that wiki page, so the most informative would float to the top. I'm generally against any sort of rating or ranking system on Chowhound, but here's one place I'd agree it could be useful. I don't know how that could really work though- you'd have to have the rating feature on the thread itself, and I'd not be a fan of having a rating system anywhere besides on the wiki page.

                                      Personally, I just like having the logistical information there and easy to see when a place is being discussed. It gives me an idea of neighborhood/area. And especially when the website is added to the place, it makes it easy to look at the menu to see if it's right for me. Plus I really like how the "Places Mentioned" gives a quick overview of answers on that topic (although I hate how the order makes no sense). I'd love to see a mapping feature incorporated that allows me to map all the Places linked on a given thread. I think tourists would find that particularly useful, but I'd like it as well.

                                      1. re: Chris VR

                                        Let me clarify that my issue is with the threads that are accumulating in the "In the Boards" database. I think the other aspects of Places for ease of adding a link and recording all the logistics info and opinion snippets are all great.

                                        In the example you linked for Speed's, this thread on Site Talk is linked up in the database. That's going to frustrate a casual reader who opens it, not help her. She would be better served by using the search engine, as the thread archive isn't really a quick overview of "answers". Many of the threads in this initial stage have no content at all about the subject, just the name and a link to Places. So, as you suggest, let's think about ways to make the "In the Boards" section which has the list of linked threads more useful with a relevance sorting or a reader-directed rating. It could be as simple as asking "was this helpful?" and recording the number of "yes" or "no" responses.

                                        1. re: Melanie Wong

                                          I'm no engineer so I don't know what this would entail, but what if it worked like this:?

                                          User clicks on a link from a Place's "In the Boards" section. Link opens in a new page, while the Place page refreshes to now have a "was this helpful?" button next to the thread.

                                          1. re: Chris VR

                                            You're talking about something like what Amazon does with reviews? Would yes or no be enough? Would you want some kind of relevance or helpfulness rating on a scale (like 1 to 5)?

                                  3. This is a very nice addition!

                                    Is there any possibility of enabling a geographical search of the database?

                                    2 Replies
                                    1. re: mattm

                                      I don't think I understand. What's a geographical search? (Right now, you can search individual boards -- something other than that?)

                                      1. re: jane

                                        I can imagine two NYC centric ways that could play out.

                                        1) Enter an address into places, and get a map of places listed in the places database. Even more difficult, i imagine, but cooler and more flexible, would be if you could enter an intersection, say 125th St and 5th Ave.

                                        2) Enter names of tourist destinations (Lincoln Center, Rockefeller Center, the Metropolitan Museum, etc.) and get a map of places listings. If this were user friendly and staightforward, it could go a long way in answering the gazillions of repetitive, straightforward tourist queries that show up on the Manhattan boards.

                                        Jim Leff has a great google map of Jackson Heights street food. Having the places listings feed into something like that, which was easily accessible and easily searchable could be really cool.

                                    2. I admit I did not read through this thread, but I am having a problem updating an address for "Hagi Izakaya". The listing says it's on 152 East 49th st, but it's actually on West 49th st.

                                      Every time I try to edit it and save, the changes don't stick. Any reasons why?

                                      1. Two observations about the use of the Place feature:
                                        - The Local Info field can be misused as the superb post of Mr. Lauritzen points out:
                                        http://www.chowhound.com/topics/431662
                                        I'm paranoid about what to put there and set a bad example. I think linking to external reviews is in bad form. I've mainly used it for links to menus when the place doesn't have its own web site. I hope that the CH staff will review the contents/use of this field and add check box (yes/no) fields in the future to aid in searching.
                                        - The Place feature isn't used enough except on the SFBA board, perhaps they're more computer literate up there :-).
                                        To correct this, the FAQ should be moved to a MUCH more prominent place (not at bottom in 6 point type) and should Emphasize the Benefits. The opening of this topic is kind of wordy so this point may be hard to pick out. Use bullets!

                                        1 Reply
                                        1. re: DiveFan

                                          DiveFan, I'm not sure how one knows when a feature is being used "enough" but we're actively using the places feature on the Midwest board, particularly among the Twin Cities posters. Here's a few recent threads, for example:

                                          http://www.chowhound.com/topics/432080
                                          http://www.chowhound.com/topics/429549
                                          http://www.chowhound.com/topics/429382

                                          And, when someone forgets to add a places link in a thread, or is new to the forum and doesn't know to add the places link, or an "older thread" gets resurrected, it isn't atypical for someone else to pop into the thread and specifically add a places link, as MplsM ary has done here: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/33755...

                                          To me it seems that the more people use the places linking, the more other people notice the places linking and try it out for themselves. It's kinda viral that way (in a good way, I think.

                                          )

                                          I know people are actively using it on other boards, too, though, like Boston. http://www.chowhound.com/topics/418667

                                          I don't disagree with your suggestions, I just want to point out that the feature is taking hold!

                                          ~TDQ

                                        2. To the CH staff - I just fired up Google Earth and was stunned to find Yelp there. I know Yelp is a more general review site, but many of their food reviews make me grind teeth.
                                          Since CH is a much more coherent source of food info, hopefully some upcoming features will make CH more 'Map Centric'. Maybe CH will find a place on Google Earth. Unless CH must pay :-(.

                                          2 Replies
                                          1. re: DiveFan

                                            CH is a more "coherent source of food info" by and for a small, arguably elitist, subculture. Chowhound "reviewers", such as they are, are preaching to the choir. Yelp is a far more comprehensive data base of reviews and represents the whole spectrum of opinion.

                                            In any event, ANYONE can create a Google Earth Database.

                                            1. re: Gary Soup

                                              We'll have to agree to disagree. The demographic of CH is now approaching Yelp and vice versa.
                                              I don't know which boards you hang out it, but the LA board is flooded with posts from people who act excessively caffeinated and possibly ADD. You can almost set your clock by topics with titles "Whats the Best <food item>" that repeat as soon as the older one with the Exact Same Title scrolls to page two. Some of these reviews are helpful, some are nothing more than a substitute for private IM e.g. they leave out street addresses or Place links!
                                              OTOH Yelp 'reviewers' are getting more articulate and saying something other than 'tastes great, less filling'.
                                              I was pointing out that a new Google Earth user sees a (apparently paid) layer of Yelp locations by default. CH desparately needs a 'Map View' to offer.

                                          2. As of today, this feature seems to be completely nonfunctional.

                                            Earlier today, the L.t.a.p. would bring up a list of choices, but regardless of which one tou would click on it would always link to the fourth on the list.

                                            Now it doesn't even open the Ltap dialog; clicking on the link just shoots you up to the top orf the page.

                                            5 Replies
                                            1. re: maxzook

                                              Yup. Most disappointing and annoying.

                                              1. re: maxzook

                                                Well, the ltap dialog is now opening up, but it still doesn't work properly.

                                                The search feature brings up "Chow Places" followed by "Other Results By Name Or Location". The problem is that if the database doesn't recognize your entry as a Chow Place, it won't link -- instead it will randomly choose another place from "Other Results By Name Or Location". And it doesn't matter how precisely you enter the location. For example ...

                                                Name: Green Room
                                                Location: Los Angeles, CA

                                                brings up the same list as ...

                                                Name: Green Room
                                                Location: 6745 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA

                                                In both cases, the correct Green Room comes up in first place under "Other Results By Name Or Location". But clicking on it creates a link to the fourth listed Green Room, on Abbot Kinney in Venice.

                                                I could probably get around this by using the Add A Place feature, but I don't want to create more duplicates. The longer this remains broken, the more duplicates are going to be loaded.

                                                If this feature is ever going to be useful this needs to be fixed ASAP, and IMHO they should take it down until it works.

                                                -----
                                                Green Room
                                                1733 Abbot Kinney Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90291

                                                1. re: maxzook

                                                  I am having this exact problem. No matter what link (in the search results) I click on when I search for something that has multiple results, it chooses the same one (first one, when I tried).

                                                  This is a big bug that needs to be fixed.

                                                  1. re: eatfood

                                                    I have a feeling they've been concentrating on getting the hub pages up, which IMHO should've been a lesser priority -- the info on those pages is worthless if the LTAP linking is broken.

                                                    But maybe now that they're online, they'll go back to work on it.

                                                2. re: maxzook

                                                  I can't access the link at all. Clicking on the "Link to a place" just brings me to the top of the page without being able to enter any information.

                                                3. Pardon me if this has been raised before, but I just read through this thread quickly and only found a general comment that discussed this issue.

                                                  I was looking to update some information on a Manhattan restaurant, Topaz, aka Topaz Thai. A search turned up a link to the restaurant in Places.

                                                  http://www.chow.com/places/16233

                                                  But if you look at the posts mentioned under the heading “Topics—‘Topaz’ is mentioned in these topics:” you’ll see that at least five of the seven posts have nothing to do with the mid-town Manhattan restaurant that is referenced here.

                                                  This is a bar in DC, not the Manhattan Restaurant.
                                                  http://www.chowhound.com/topics/37362...

                                                  Restaurant of the same name, but this one’s in San Antonio.
                                                  http://www.chowhound.com/topics/45892...

                                                  This isn’t even a restaurant, it’s the name of a dish.
                                                  http://www.chowhound.com/topics/10845...

                                                  This one refers to a motel in Florida
                                                  http://www.chowhound.com/topics/456012

                                                  And this one seems to be referring to a hotel in DC
                                                  http://www.chowhound.com/topics/45014...

                                                  I assume the software is automatically searching the database for any posts that happen to include the word “topaz,” but it’s annoying to have to sift through so many irrelevancies to get the appropriate links. Is there any way to remedy this?

                                                  1 Reply