|Horribly cluttered BBS layer||nzlegend||8/18/05 6:08 PM|
The BBS layer is fast becoming ridiculous and almost unusable in some locations, e.g Washington DC where 10 eagre members have all decided they needed to placemark the Washington Monument.
As Google Earth becomes more popular this problem will soon escalate to a point where the clutter makes it impossible to see the forest for all the trees, so to speak.
something needs to be done soon to save it.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||judgelrae||8/18/05 7:06 PM|
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||SamiRose||8/18/05 7:12 PM|
oh mi.. I was just there too, and was quite amused by those postings. But yes, we should NOT produce clutter here, there is quite enough clutter there! (traffic and people and what-not) But someone posted "More Lots Found" there, I then clicked on that and found this! Otherwise I would not have found this. So I like them!
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||ed.sterrett||8/18/05 7:34 PM|
Quote:There has been a concerted effort by many to educate and warn people about this very problem. I imagine this last update added as many new placemarks to the Community layer than has been accumulated over the last three years or so. Perhaps now, people will wise up and see the importance of the advice to "look first". They were so intent on becoming an "i" that they simply ignored that advice.
I get a bit of a chuckle thinking about how excited they must have felt when the update was announced.. loading up GE and hunting for their "special" placemark.. and finding it buried under all the others. LOL!
IMHO, one can put flashing lights around a proven fact, highlight it in bold red text (WHOA! Read this first!) on the very page they have to use to post the hundredth placemark for the Statue of Liberty.. and it's like talking to someone in gibberish. They'll just stare at you for a second, say "Isn't that cute", and blast number 101 onto the board.
Here's an idea.. how about a two-step registration process. Completing the first step allows the ability to post questions, read and respond to messages and such. The second step must be completed in order to attach placemarks. Here's the kicker.. The instructions on how to complete that second registration would be "hidden" somewhere that only a "SEARCH" would reveal. I know.. it could be "hidden" in the Answers to Frequently Asked Questions or Collected Keyhole Wisdom areas.. last place anyone would look..
OK.. feeling a bit punchy tonight.. been a long week.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||timfitz||8/18/05 8:20 PM|
Hey there everyone,
This is a good topic to have out in discussion -- I'm a new member and have made some replies to discussions, but haven't posted any placemarks. Part of this is a concern that places are already covered in pins, flags etc to the point that you can't see the trees for their forest.
Now something that has started to become clear to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that these placemarks live only on our individual computers, and not on the Google Earth files as a whole. Lately I have started to weed out some, where they are duplicated. Some of them are even duplications as a result of my clicking a placemark to realize only after I get there that I have already visited.
So as I have started to do my own thinning of placemarks in my files, and sometimes directly after viewing, I have been wondering why it would be a matter that could be so irritating to some, that someone would place a mark in a post that might be a duplication, or even a well-visited spot.
As I mentioned, I am still quite new at all this, so I will be really happy to have any misunderstandings that I might have cleared up, and such clarification may benefit others as well.
All in all, I am really enjoying this program and all the discussions in so many areas of interest about places all over this wonderful planet of ours.
Thanks to you all,
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Chief_Sparky||8/18/05 8:44 PM|
I hate making "fluff" posts... but esterrett, that's one of the best, most clever, and deliciously twisted idea's I've seen all day!
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Chief_Sparky||8/18/05 10:40 PM|
Hi timfitz, welcome to GE!
Depending on WHICH placemarks you're looking at, they can either reside on your own PC or are actually part of the Keyhole Community BBS layer, streamed to you from the Google Earth servers.
Basically, if a placemark is posted on the BBS, then it will probably end up in the BBS layer at the next database update.
Keeping your placemarks neat and organized (and archived out of GE on occasion) is an outstanding habit to get into.
I've been using GE more as a teaching tool (for both myself and my children) than as a "golly! wow! look at the Statue of Liberty!" sort of thing. Creating tours that explicitly map out the history or significance of an item or place is very rewarding, both to myself and to my "pupils". As several here on the board can tell you, I'm fond of adages. A favorite is "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". It's something I'm trying desperately to instill into my children - GE is shaping up to be the tool that I need to accomplish that task!
Again, welcome to Google Earth, and the Keyhole BBS.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Periboob||8/19/05 12:36 AM|
I like aphorisms also Chief, they are the lazy person's version of wisdom. Mine tend a little toward the cynical side though. Like:
Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.
And my welcome also timmy
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||swpmre||8/19/05 6:58 AM|
Even though I am fairly new here, this is fast becoming a pet hate (project?) of mine. The horrible clutter on the BBS layer is fast making the BBS layer unusable - I happily decided to visit New York in GE just after the last update was made, only to be shocked to see a swamp of blue i's.
What I don't understand, is why we, as GE's user base, don't do two things in addition to posting to new members when duplicate placemarks are added.
Firstly, can't we get Google Earth to remove some duplicate placemarks from the database. I realise this would require some work, but it's frankly ridiculous that the Statue of Liberty, the Millenium Dome and the Cutty Sark have as many marks as they do. (The Millenium Dome itself is ridiculous, but that's another story). To help with this, we could get people to volunteer to clean up bits of the map - I would gladly volunteer to clean-up some of the London placemarks.
Secondly, can we not ask duplicate posters to edit and remove their placemark from their post, otherwise it will get incorporated into the next Database update. If the user doesn't do this, can we not get the moderators to do it.
Finally, what should we do if there is an error posted. The new thread about the Falklands war, clearly has a wrong placemark. There is NO way it should be incorporated into any future GE database update.
This placemark should be removed.
It is a simple example, but I think could serve to solve future problems as well as making the whole thing easier and friendly to use.
Sorry to bang on about this, but it's fast becoming an obsession for me. Mind you, it beats work.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||MightyPete||8/19/05 4:51 PM|
Maybe we need a voting system. Users can mark dupes, errors, and a course of action recommended. delete or include in the bbs layer. A script could then delete the duplicate attachments.
One thing we should do though that would cut down the problem to 1/10th of the size is limit new users from posting attachments till they have at least 25 posts under their belt.
How about this too. He he, You post a dupe you are fined 25 more posts till you get it before you can post another attachment.
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to use Google Earth and the BBS and he won't bother you for months, if ever, again." - Mighty Pete 01000111 01110010 01100101 01100101 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 01110011 00100000 01000110 01110010 01101111 01101101 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100101 01110100 00100000 01000101 01100001 01110010 01110100 01101000 00100000 00100001 00100000
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Anonymous||8/20/05 7:55 AM|
And what do you do when people start spamming the forum asking how to do it? Ignore it? Some are bound to tell them, do you ban those people?
Google is evil.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Anonymous||8/20/05 7:57 AM|
This on the other hand I think is a good idea - or even 50 posts. They need to tinker with the bbs software anyway, because the default setting for "flat mode" is totally bugged.
Google is evil.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Calico_Jack||8/20/05 8:15 AM|
I know of at least 6 different discussions regarding the BBS Layer Clutter (I've chimed in often).
The good news (in my mind) is that at least a company like Google is behind this. If any company can come up with solutions to cut through data clutter, Google would be one.
Isn't this still a beta project?
No complaining, just observing.
In the interim, I almost NEVER turn on the BBS layer for all the reasons enunciated in the above posts.
Avast ye, matey and shiver me timbers! Scurvy dogs, the lot of ye!
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||SloeJen||8/20/05 12:54 PM|
I've been using Google Earth for a while but joined the BBS only a few weeks ago. It is the biggest time sink since Tetris, but so much more educational!
Duplicate placemarks are a big problem. I like the idea of telling new posters of duplicate placemarks they have to delete them, but that implies someone's spending all their time looking for these things. Maybe there's an automated way to find things in close proximity with duplicate words in the titles...
Another problem is what I'll call "transitory" placemarks. Airplanes, fires, etc. that may have been in the picture once, but are gone now due to new imagery replacing the old. Maybe when new data is added, that triggers a review of placemarks posted in that area and things like "airplane," "approach" are parsed out for retiring.
Along similar lines, sometimes you want to post a placemark relevant to a topic discussion in the BBS, but it's not really worth permanently cluttering up the layer for. How about if there is a two-tier placemark system whereby it's an extra click on some box in the BBS posting tool to "publish" the placemark in the BBS layer over and above contributing it to the discussion thread? Alternatively, when posting a placemark, the user could be prompted to provide an "expiry" date for that placemark, whereby they could be notified that it would expire unless they wanted to renew it. Make the user do more of the work of pre-coding these things and then it's less work to deal with them later.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||ed.sterrett||8/20/05 8:14 PM|
Allegory: A narrative technique in which characters representing things or abstract ideas are used to convey a message or teach a lesson. Allegory is typically used to teach moral, ethical, or religious lessons but is sometimes used for satiric or political purposes.
|Expiration Date||Na_moita||8/21/05 8:45 AM|
I like the idea of "expiration date".
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||joephilley||8/21/05 6:38 PM|
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Wabbit||8/21/05 7:27 PM|
Yes, it will take time to remove duplicates. Patience is a virtue. My suggestion would be to have a screen show what is now on the top of each reply page or post page BEFORE anyone can post.
" WHOA! Read this first!
We know that you're bursting with enthusiasm, but have you checked to see if the feature you are about to post has already been added? Please switch on the Keyhole Community BBS and User Supplied Collections layers in your Google Earth client and check first! Everyone would really appreciate it if you search before posting!"
'Click continue if not posted before'
It may not stop all duplicates but it couldn' hurt (except for the carpal tunnel!)
Anyway, like I was sayin', wabbit is the fruit of the land. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, wabbit-kabobs, wabbit creole, wabbit gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple wabbit, lemon wabbit, coconut wabbit, pepper wabbit, wabbit soup, wabbit stew, wabbit salad, wabbit and potatoes, wabbit burger, wabbit sandwich. That- that's about it.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||themarsh||8/21/05 10:19 PM|
As a newbie, I assumed there was some "special" significance to the BBS layers that appear to come bundled with Earth. Perhaps this should actually be the case - a cadre of experienced volunteers should elect the best and explicitly include them in the next release.
When I put up a placemark, I only intend it to be browsed by people entering the BBS. Is there a way to so designate it, to avoid its becoming part of the general clutter of the I's that ends up on everyone's computer? (sorry if this is already in the FAQ - didn't notice it there)
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||swpmre||8/22/05 6:12 AM|
I like both the idea of voting, and of a limited number of posts before you can add a placemark.
Though I think it should be lower - ten or five perhaps. You don't want to put people off posting, and its usually the first few posts that they put up a duplicate anyway, before some helpful soul points this out.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||themarsh||8/22/05 8:01 AM|
What the "Whoa!" phrase does not tell us newbies is that our attached placemark will end up amongst the I's. Perhaps others entering the BBS for the first time easily make that connection, but I did not. In fact, until I read this thread, I was puzzled as to why it might be a problem if multiple people posted similar placemarks - after all, from my perspective, I was just downloading them one at a time from the postings, picking the individual placemarks I fancied.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Anonymous||8/22/05 9:20 AM|
Irrelevant: having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue.
Google is evil.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer - A quiz?||IBeamer||9/17/05 9:26 AM|
As a newbie I have made most of the common mistakes; duplicates etc. But I have gone back and deleted or edited my posts when my errors were pointed out to me. Starting to use GE causes one to be sparked with enthusiasm, and eager to join the fun before learning all the things one should know. Yes, I eventually read the tutorials, collected wisdom etc. and gradually learned ( still am ).
Now for my $0.02 worth. Why not, before allowing a member to upload placemarks, make them pass a quiz covering the things covered in the documentation? It should include editing and deleting posts, using search etc.
Hope this helps to keep the conversation going on ways to improve GE.
There are few new inventions. Most progress is made by putting old ideas together in new ways.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||FrankB||9/17/05 2:31 PM|
I don't think you will ever solve the problem with the current way of maintaining the BBS layer. As long as everyone can freely add to it, it is bound to end up as a useless mass of redundant placemarks. New people don't know about the rules, and moderators can inform about it thousands of time, it's not going to help. That is the price you have to pay when making things open for everyone to maintain, it seems like a good idea at the start, but it usually ends up as something that runs out of control. Just wait until people begin spamming the BBS layer with all forms of advertising as they do in emails.
Another thing: It is not always that simple to just say "turn on the BBS layer" or "do a search" before posting a placemark to see if it is already there, because some of the additions include many placemarks that is somehow connected, and it would be wrong to leave one out just because someone else has already posted it. Let's say that you want to post a folder containing placemarks of rollercosters in various amusement parks (it does actually exist). Should you then leave out the ones that are already mentioned, so you don't get double placemarks? I think that would be wrong. The collection should contain all rollercoasters regardless of other peoples existing placemarks.
|Solution?||simsam||9/17/05 3:20 PM|
Well there should be a "report duplicate " link in the description of each placemark.
Another solution would be to scan the world, looking for close placemarks containing the same words and regrouping them under a single one (and listing all the BBS links in the description)
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Grimmie||9/17/05 3:38 PM|
Get rid of the BBS data file and let us start over.
Some one need to set up a poll and we could vote.
1. Trash the old BBS data file.
2. Leave it alone.
3. Report duplicates and have someone remove them.
4. Right a program. to get rid of the bad data.
5. Just do something else to fix it.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||FrankB||9/17/05 3:44 PM|
Why use the BBS layer at all? I never have it turned on, so I don't care if places are marked multiple times. I use the forum to find interresting information, and follow the links from there, so why care if the same place has been marked by someone else?
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Grimmie||9/17/05 3:45 PM|
6: Leave BBS layer off.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||simsam||9/17/05 3:55 PM|
as i said earlier, its easy to automatically merge duplicated placemarks...
it would occupy the server for a couple of minuts but would clean up most of the duplicates (while leaving the links to each post )
I can write the code in an hour or two, and im sure the GE team can also.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Grimmie||9/17/05 4:03 PM|
Here that GE hire the man.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||FrankB||9/17/05 4:05 PM|
The problem is that you have to identify which placemarks point to the same thing. Pick a random place with a huge white globe on the ground. One person will post "What is this?", another will post "Is this a UFO?", a third one will post "The worlds largest 3D-cinema". The placemarks will not necessarily be placed in exactly the same spot. How should this be handled? What should be the caption of the combined placemarks? I don't think it's an easy task to automate this.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||simsam||9/17/05 4:14 PM|
This wont remove all the crap. But i think the most polluted places are monuments, train stations etc. In this case the names will look awefully alike (could vary depending on the language it is written in though..).
Although its not perfect, it would clean most of the crap. And uncloud most cultural or really interesting places.
|Have "someone" remove them||timfitz||9/17/05 4:21 PM|
Here's my $.02
re: #1 -- we all have the capacity to do that, and these days I turn the BBS layer on selectively, as I do the other layers (boundaries, roads, etc) when I'm interested in what other people have seen in an area, or if I'm considering making a post, of course. Trashing the whole layer will certainly take care of all the multiple postings, planes that have flown away, fires that have been put out, etc, but will also lose many wonderful placemarks.
re: #2 --- ..........well.......
re: #3 -- Have someone remove them. I think we need to hear from some of the moderators on this one. I have heard some concern over the matter of subjectivity, yet people feel, and I think I agree, that there needs to be a human involvement in this, rather than doing it technologically, as in having a program do it (point #5)
What I would like to know, from the moderators, is whether they would feel that this is an overwhelming task, to sift through all these placemarks, and whether they see other issues here. Suppose the corner of Front and Main gets too crowded with placemarks. Do we delete Jimmy's Fish and Chip Shoppe, and leave the MegaMaul across the street?
I'm not sure about a straight voting system. I'd hate for us to be keeping all the Jessica Simpson placemarks and lose the Major Holley (no offense to any pop idols) just because one is much better known, at the moment, than the other.
re: #4 -- because I am a slow writer the thoughts have been popping up about this one -- if people feel that a program would work, that would be great, but I have my doubts about this one, too. As well as the examples mentioned there are some creative spelings in the placemarks, so that the program may not recognize them as the same place.
At least everyone in this thread is reading the "Whoa! Read this first!" line at the top of each post!
thanks to everyone for making GE and BBS a thoughtful and entertaining place to be.
|Re: Have "someone" remove them||FrankB||9/17/05 4:41 PM|
I think it should be optional to include placemarks in the BBS layer. I don't get why every placemark we put in the forum has to show in the BBS layer. Placemarks of the kind "what is this?" has nothing to do there. It has no useful information when browsing in GE. I would like to see only placemarks that identify things, and not placemarks asking what things are. It is, of course, all right to ask for identification of something, but it belongs in the forum.
It really annoys me that you cannot point to a place without getting the placemark in the BBS layer. In the current thread we are talking of places crowded with placemarks. I cannot point to such a place without getting it even more crowded.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||Periboob||9/17/05 4:59 PM|
About the time this thread was taking off, I started a thread in Open forum for the purpose of listing suggestions Minimal discussion, just a list of ideas. Maybe someone will have a killer idea, and someone will be assigned the job of implementing it.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||mcheong||9/18/05 12:32 AM|
Hi everyone I see the end of placemarks in the near future. It will collapse due to the present system. It is only a matter of time. Regrets. No rules no order = you already know.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||FrankB||9/18/05 2:18 AM|
Either accept it as it is, or drop it completely. Personally I never use the BBS layer. I find interresting placemarks thru the forum.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||EarthSurfer||9/18/05 7:59 AM|
I hope there is a good solution to this problem. I have seen alot of places where there are double placemarks in the exact same spot (for example there are three placemarks in hollywood in the same exact place that say 'Capital Records Building at Hollywood & Vine') - and of course all of the major cities are way too full. We dont need a whole bunch of placemarks in Boston that say 'Boston, Massachusttes'. A solution might be that if someone tried to post something that has just the two words Boston and Massachusettes near a placemark that is already there, they would be told that it has already been posted.
Anyways, I hope you guys find something to fix this.
victum orbis terrarum
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||FrankB||9/18/05 10:20 AM|
It is not as simple as that. Why prevent people from making a link to a specific place just because someone else has already done it? Let's say you have something interresting to tell about a place, you look in the BSS and see another placemark there. Bad luck, now you cannot tell your storry and refer people to the place. Your only choice is to go to the other persons thread and write your story there, where it might be completely out of place.
If I have something to say about a place, I would like to be able to make a new thread with a link to it, and not worry about other peoples placemarks.
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||IBeamer||9/18/05 12:23 PM|
There seem to be a lot of ideas of how to drain the swamp, but if the holes in the levee are not plugged first the pumping will go on forever. An idea that I had was to make users qualify to post placemarks by passing a quiz based on the documentation, collected wisdom, FAQ etc. to insure the have at least done some RTFM before posting.
The first exposure to GE is so exciting that new users can't wait to get in on the fun ( been there, done that ).
There are few new inventions. Most progress is made by putting old ideas together in new ways.
|Re: Have "someone" remove them||Slithytove||9/18/05 5:24 PM|
This option gets my vote. Give us the option.
And then cull the "what is this?" type of placemarks.
have a seperate "what is this" thread that can be turned off. Because they really are annoying when in GE.
|A Wiki-like solution?||SinPi||9/24/05 5:46 PM|
How about a Wiki-like solution? If anyone can add a new placemark, perhaps also anyone should be able to delete placemarks..?
Of course, this would likely require some sort of difficulty barrier, so that no moron goes deleting whatever they point their finger at. A non-trivial process (ie. posting an almost-exact duplicate of the placemark to be deleted, with the word DELETE added in the title) could do the trick.
If that proves to be troublesome, perhaps the author of the offending/duplicate/stupid/erroneous placemark could be notified by e-mail, that their placemark is being modified/deleted, and they might want to replace it, should they notice that a delete-happy kid is removing their perfectly valid placemark. This, however, could have the effect of placemark-happy users insistently replacing their beloved placemark on the middle finger Libby could show the world if she could.
Yet another idea could be to have the mod team - or some additional helpers - review deletion/modification requests, and only apply them once accepted. I believe this would be the best idea, as a dozen or so of deletions could be accepted in one minute-person.
|Re: A Wiki-like solution?||RocketFox||9/24/05 10:46 PM|
Based on my relatively new experience, I think the best suggestion is Education.
Perhaps if users with few posts under their belt are allowed to save placemarks to "My Places" or on their computers (which I do) and are not allowed to add to the Community other than by being able to post the placemarks in posts would help to keep the overall clutter to a minimum.
Of course, that requires a bit of human intervention for a time, at least.
But... Get them used to saving them on their own and not flooding the BBS layer with placemarks for all to wade though would be very helpful.
This way, users that are interested can see the postmark, but those that are not would not see them at all, and not be bothered.
Barring that, a new forumand layer "What's This?" is an excellent idea. That way the postmarks would have the option of being turned off.
From personal experience, the places I go to a lot to see if there's new placemarks with questions, are very cluttered, and that's a difficulty.
RocketFox-- out to launch
|Re: Horribly cluttered BBS layer||king_nothing_||10/24/05 4:04 AM|
I'm relatively new to Google Earth, and I just discovered something that cuts down on the level of annoyance which comes from placemark clutter. I'm sure most of you veterens have already done this, but other people may have not: change the label/icon size to small in tools>>options. That somewhat reduces the problem of placemarks covering up too much of the ground. Personally I think they should another size to choose from, like "extra small."
I agree with the idea of making placemark postings not mandatorily go into the Keyhole BBS layer. In my opinion, placemarks should, by default, not go into the BBS layer. There should be a check box at the bottom of the post page (like the "add signature to this post" button) that you have to click in order for your placemark to be added to the BBS layer. Placemarks along the lines of "what is this" just don't belong in a permanent layer (not to mention all the other stupid placemarks I've seen).
Before I go on, I have a question. Say that you post a placemark, and when the server gets updated, it is added to the BBS layer. If you delete that post, will that delete the placemark the next time the server gets updated? Can a placemark be deleted in that manner, even after it has been added to the BBS layer? I would would assume it couldn't, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.
Now, about preventing future duplicate/erroneous/pointless placemarks. In my opinion, this should be the moderators' responsibility. Some of you may think that seems like too much work, but that's the only way things are going to get better. I don't know how many mods there currently are, or how many members there are here, but we need a lot of mods to get the job done properly. They need to be strict too. If someone posts a duplicate, a mod just needs to delete it. Period. Or, if it's possible, they could just delete the person's attachment, and then post in the thread telling them why it was deleted. If you just delete the entire thread, people will just re-post the placemark and/or bitch about it being deleted.