Top
Best
New

Posted by justincormack 12/9/2025

How Google Maps allocates survival across London's restaurants(laurenleek.substack.com)
400 points | 211 commentspage 5
theahura 12/11/2025|
Pretty sure this whole post is generated by AI
a3w 12/11/2025||
"rating to low by 1.3" for a restaurant rated 5/5.

WTF? One and zero are not probabilities, and 6 out of 5 is not a rating.

anti-soyboy 12/11/2025||
Google develops all kind of bullshit because it is funnier than working
RivieraKid 12/10/2025||
> Google Maps is not just indexing demand - it is actively organising it through a ranking system built on

This is where I stopped reading.

x0x0 12/9/2025||
Interesting work, but ultimately silly: of course google maps ranks results. No one (yes, yes, I'm sure like 3 people) want a list of all results, unordered or ordered by something useless like name, when they type in restaurant. And I cannot put into words how uneager I am to have the city or state government manage what comes up when I put indian or burrito into a map.
rendx 12/9/2025||
Where in the post do you see the author arguing about "a list of all results"? To me, it merely draws attention to the fact that there is only one algorithm available in Google Maps, and you rely on Google to calculate "relevance" based on (to us) unknown and intransparent metrics. It draws attention to the kind of power Google has over businesses and our daily lives, without necessarily presenting alternatives. Nothing about that is "silly". It might be more relevant to me to learn about new, small, independent restaurants, but I don't have that choice. If I had access to the full data set, like e.g. OSM, I would.
csoups14 12/10/2025|||
Nowhere in the article is the author suggesting that local or state governments manage these algorithms, just that they be audited for fairness given the amount of power these algorithms hold in the market. Google operates something of a monopoly in Google Maps and its recommendations. You don't find an attempt to understand the efficacy of its rankings or how Google or market participants could be manipulating the rankings to benefit themselves interesting?
x0x0 12/11/2025||
You clearly didn't read it. A direct quote:

> At minimum, ranking algorithms with this much economic consequence should be auditable.

"At minimum". Immediately preceded by a paragraph starting by "For policy", with sentences like "If discovery now shapes small-business survival, then competition, fairness, and urban regeneration can no longer ignore platform ranking systems" or "tools of local economic policy".

That's perhaps not an outright call for regulation, but it's certainly suggesting it's warranted.

digitalPhonix 12/10/2025|||
> No one (yes, yes, I'm sure like 3 people) want a list of all results, unordered or ordered by something useless like name

That's not what the author was suggesting (or indeed, what they built). They were trying to untangle the positive feedback bias showing up first in the rankings gives.

I think there's probably a lot more to untangle, but as a first pass it's super cool!

x0x0 12/10/2025||
It's the feigned surprise and sort of attitude that google is doing something malicious or it's a subterfuge. Starting with a bolded "Google Maps Is Not a Directory. It’s a Market Maker." and inishing with eg

> the most important result isn’t which neighbourhood tops the rankings - it’s the realisation that platforms now quietly structure survival in everyday urban markets.

For any service like this, _of course_ ranking is at the core of it. A more honest article could have started there, eg "since you can't display all results, and doing so is useless to everyone, the heart of these products is their ranking algorithm and choices. Let's examine Google's."

shermantanktop 12/10/2025||
A tone of breathless wonder is now the coin of the realm. Quality research and interesting analysis gets the same treatment as everything else, because that's what gets clicks and responses. Dinging an individual article for this is arbitrary and capricious.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. I hate the game too, fwiw.

x0x0 12/11/2025||
Still a lie though. If you don't know / aren't familiar with a ranker, the author is priming you through the entire article to believe google is doing something wrong or malicious by ranking the results. Rather than the same thing search engines have been doing for 30 years. Whether their ranker is good or bad (and for whom) is separate.

Including, of course, the way many popular chain restaurants got there is they make food a lot of people like.

asdff 12/10/2025||
Uhh, I want a list of all the results. I want to be able to search comprehensively within my map viewer frame.
jeffbee 12/10/2025||
Over small areas you can get that, but the API only returns 20 results, so you will either need a ranking signal over a large area, or a grid search over tiny areas.
asdff 12/10/2025|||
What is wrong with alphabetical? It's how the yellow pages used to work.
x0x0 12/10/2025||
Useless but also stupid.

A1 steak house.

AAA1 steak house.

00AAA000 steak house.

febusravenga 12/11/2025||
Aaaand that's clear signal to avoid those
tehjoker 12/11/2025|||
I just looked at google maps and (I didn't realize this previously), but you can scroll the results and it will change the map when you bump against the bottom of the list.
dash2 12/11/2025|
> This disproportionately rewards chains and already-central venues. Chains benefit from cross-location brand recognition. High-footfall areas generate reviews faster....

I think this is very likely false if you mean compared to the status quo ante. Before Maps, a well-loved but hard-to-find venue just wouldn't ever be seen by most people, and the absence of reviews made branding more important because it was all you had to go on. I'd be very doubtful if the proportion of independent cafes and restaurants decreases when Google Maps enters an area. (Couldn't find any causal research designs though....)

The more general point that the algorithm is not neutral (and probably never could be) must be right.

(I asked ChatGPT but it ended up with: "We have almost no clean exogenous variation in Maps rankings or feature rollouts at fine geographic scales that would let you estimate impacts on entry, survival, or market structure in a neat DiD/IV way.")

secabeen 12/11/2025||
Before GMaps, we had the Zagat Guides, which were an important way for many restaurants to start pulling in traffic.
noitpmeder 12/11/2025||
Who the hell cares what garbage chatgpt vomited based on your unspecified chain of prompts?