"Places mentioned" feature less than useless
This short http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/796674 (one query, one response) exchange mentions three restaurants. The 'places mentioned' map displays a fourth establishment, mentioned by neither the OP or the responder.
With an accuracy level of -33%, 'places mentioned is less than useless. If it didn't accurately locate any businesses, it would be merely useless. By confusing anyone looking for the three places actually mentioned, it drops into the negative region.
Why not eliminate the 'places mentioned' space waster?
The restaurant I'm seeing listed (Cafe Europa) appears to be the correct location mentioned by gblcsw at the end of his post. The street names seem to match up at least; or is there a different Cafe Europa that should appear there?.
As for the other two restaurants ( presumably http://www.chow.com/restaurants/20889/tom-jenkins-bar-b-q and http://www.chow.com/restaurants/249896/storks-bakery-and-coffee-house ), the system failed to recognize the shortened versions of the restaurant names used in those posts. This is intentional; if Places Mentioned were more aggressive at matching names, then false positives would become a much larger problem. "Storks" could have just as easily resulted in http://www.chow.com/restaurants/25710... if we loosened up the matching.
More importantly, Places Mentioned also takes into account the restaurants that Chowhounds explicitly link to their posts, which can remove the margin of error completely. I agree that the system has its quirks, but it does serve its intended purpose.
However, that intended purpose is not very useful
It is not explicitly linked restaurants by chowhounds. It is any restaurant autolinked and casually mentioned in a post. Then if you want more reviews than are displayed on the restaurant record, all that happpens is the regular search. It has nothing to do with linking ... auto or explicit. Both are problems.
Before autolink, this was explicitly linked. When the change went through long ago, years of linking done by chowhounds was wiped out. The way it works now ... isn't useful. I might just as well use search in the first place.
That is not to say explicit link didn't have problems. However, it filled that saction with real reviews thought it might have missed some.
There has been some talk about changing that section so that it would only have expliccit links to actual reports. I hope that is still on the schedule.
The way some of these featuers are implemented, make usefull features unused ... which I know isn't the problem of engineering.
The box at the top where you can indicate something is a review doesen;t get used for a number of reasons which is too bad. The consequences of that is that on the restaurant record the short review is used infrequently giving some really skewed reviews. Let's say there is more of what looks like shilling in this section because it is overlooked. Lots of five star glowing 'reviews'. I never catch this until I'm updating a restaurant record with info.
Some of it turns out to be legit when I report it when I see it ... but Stinking Rose ... five stars ... really, really? Who knows. Might or might not be. It was one of those posters you can't track either. For all of the critisism of yelp, they never implemented something with no trail. You can look at other reviews and see what the posters is all about. In fact, I cant think of one site where you can't click on a posters name and not see what else they posted.
Is the restaurant database so desparate for reviews that we need reviews by posters that leave no trail?
Which brings up another pet peeve --
When problems are noted in comments, some do-gooder will correct the specific issue, without confirming the mistake or error in the first place.
That leaves well-meaning people like Engineering to think well-meaning people like me are just nuts!
Thanks, Jacquilynne, for fixing the 'places mentioned' section, and for throwing me under the bus.
Seriously ... seriously ... sorry for getting involved again, but one useful feature on the restaurant record that was removed was the last person who updated the record.
While it only gave you the last person who touched the record, if I saw it was you or one of the people who make lots of restaurant updates, it gave me an indication if the update to the record was made by someone responsible or a one time shill.
Really, I'm leaving soon. Just have some cleanups on posts and I'm out of here for a while.