Skip to main content

Google Maps Queue Jumps.


Google Maps directs me to and from my client sites. I've saved the location of the client's car parks, when I start the app in the morning - it knows where I want to go. When I start it at the end of the day, Google knows where I want to go.

This is great! It guides me around traffic jams, adjusts when I miss a turn and even offers faster routes en-route as they become available.

But sometimes Google Maps does something wrong. I don't mean incorrect, like how it sometimes gets a street name wrong (typically in a rural area). I don't mean how its GPS fix might put me in a neighbouring street (10m to my left - when there are trees overhead).

I mean wrong - As in something unfair and socially unacceptable. An action, that if a person did it, would be frowned upon.

Example:

Let’s assume a road has a traffic jam, so instead of the cars doing around 60 mph, we are crawling at <10 mph.

In the middle of this traffic jam, the road has a junction, an example is shown here:

Click to enlarge.

Google Maps, using its algorithm/AI, directs me off at exit (A), but rather than finding an alternative route it directs back down on to the road at point (B).

Google Maps has queue-jumped. Google's decision was reasonable and met its goals. Goals, That I assume include reducing journey time (for me). It has bypassed approx 1/4 mile of queuing cars.

It’s an intriguing issue, for a number of reasons:
  •  In cultures where queues are not expected, it might be OK (it’s a clever optimisation!)
  •  Conversely, some cultures may consider it a bug.
  •  Could we even alter/educate the algorithm to reliably distinguish between some routes (short-cuts) and others (queue-jumps)?
  •  What else might the AI deem OK, that I would consider wrong?
  •  What are Google Maps goals? Are they all in my interest and safety?
  •  These seem very far from pass/fail scenarios

For example, What if Google noticed that users used google, YouTube or its adverts more after a certain route, than if they had taken another?

What if that advert-hungry route was slower? Or more dangerous? (E.g. people use google more after that route, as they need to get their car repaired.)


Are these issues being tested for? Are the right questions being asked?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The gamification of Software Testing

A while back, I sat in on a planning meeting. Many planning meetings slide awkwardly into a sort of ad-hoc technical analysis discussion, and this was no exception. With a little prompting, the team started to draw up what they wanted to build on a whiteboard.

The picture spoke its thousand words, and I could feel that the team now understood what needed to be done. The right questions were being asked, and initial development guesstimates were approaching common sense levels.

The discussion came around to testing, skipping over how they might test the feature, the team focused immediately on how long testing would take.

When probed as to how the testing would be performed? How we might find out what the team did wrong? Confused faces stared back at me. During our ensuing chat, I realised that they had been using BDD scenarios [only] as a metric of what testing needs to be done and when they are ready to ship. (Now I knew why I was hired to help)



There is nothing wrong with checking t…

Manumation, the worst best practice.

There is a pattern I see with many clients, often enough that I sought out a word to describe it: Manumation, A sort of well-meaning automation that usually requires frequent, extensive and expensive intervention to keep it 'working'.

You have probably seen it, the build server that needs a prod and a restart 'when things get a bit busy'. Or a deployment tool that, 'gets confused' and a 'test suite' that just needs another run or three.

The cause can be any number of the usual suspects - a corporate standard tool warped 5 ways to make it fit what your team needs. A one-off script 'that manager' decided was an investment and needed to be re-used... A well-intended attempt to 'automate all the things' that achieved the opposite.

They result in a manually intensive - automated process, where your team is like a character in the movie Metropolis, fighting with levers all day, just to keep the lights on upstairs. Manual-automation, manumatio…

Scatter guns and muskets.

Many, Many years ago I worked at a startup called Lastminute.com (a European online travel company, back when a travel company didn't have to be online). For a while, I worked in what would now be described as a 'DevOps' team. A group of technical people with both programming and operational skills.

I was in a hybrid development/operations role, where I spent my time investigating and remedying production issues using my development, investigative and still nascent testing skills. It was a hectic job working long hours away from home. Finding myself overloaded with work, I quickly learned to be a little ruthless with my time when trying to figure out what was broken and what needed to be fixed.
One skill I picked up, was being able to distinguish whether I was researching a bug or trying to find a new bug. When researching, I would be changing one thing or removing something (etc) and seeing if that made the issue better or worse. When looking for bugs, I'd be casting…