Paulo Gustavo
My feedback
29 results found
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
129 votes
-
1 vote
-
100 votes
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We're pleased to confirm that this suggestion is planned and we appreciate your input as we continue to enhance our product.
An error occurred while saving the comment Despite the announcement of improvements to the Waze app’s search system, the experience remains frustrating. The core issue - the reliance on full text search - remains unaddressed. Waze should adopt mechanisms that better interpret user intent, moving beyond literal keyword matching.
This approach ignores key advancements in contextual intelligence and geolocation. It’s particularly disappointing that a product linked to Google still relies on such outdated technology in what should be its number one priority: search.
The current system often returns irrelevant results while omitting more appropriate and nearby options. The lack of an effective filter to automatically exclude results located in other cities, states, or even continents highlights a fundamental failure to apply basic spatial context. Additionally, the ongoing internal debate over whether to prioritize “Waze results” or “Google results” has become a repetitive and stagnant cliché that fails to address the real issue: the semantic and geographic quality of search itself.
Search results should be much more intelligently tied to the user’s geographic location, prioritizing nearby options even when the typed query isn’t exact. Distant results should only be shown upon request - for instance, via an “expand search radius” button.
The search system should consider categories, variations, synonyms, and even previous usage patterns.
The app could also present results using templates tailored to the type of search. For example, someone searching for “Starbucks” wants as many nearby options as possible, not a specific location; a search for “airport,” on the other hand, requires fewer results focused on confirming the correct destination.
Rather than treating Google as an internal competitor, Waze could fully embrace Google Maps search engine as a reference - and integrate it more directly, adding the unique content curation and user-powered insights that only Waze can provide.
-- Português --
Apesar do anúncio de melhorias no sistema de busca do aplicativo Waze, a experiência continua frustrante. O problema central - a dependência de uma busca por texto literal - permanece sem solução. O Waze deveria adotar mecanismos que interpretem melhor a intenção do usuário, superando a simples correspondência de palavras-chave.
Essa abordagem ignora avanços fundamentais em inteligência contextual e geolocalização. É especialmente decepcionante que um produto vinculado ao Google ainda dependa de uma tecnologia tão ultrapassada justamente naquilo que deveria ser sua prioridade número um: a busca.
O sistema atual frequentemente retorna resultados irrelevantes, ao mesmo tempo em que omite opções mais apropriadas e próximas. A ausência de um filtro eficaz para excluir automaticamente resultados localizados em outras cidades, estados ou até continentes evidencia uma falha básica na aplicação do contexto espacial. Além disso, o debate interno recorrente sobre priorizar “resultados do Waze” ou “resultados do Google” já se tornou um clichê repetitivo e estagnado, que não resolve o verdadeiro problema: a qualidade semântica e geográfica da busca.
Os resultados de busca deveriam estar muito mais ligados de forma inteligente à localização geográfica do usuário, priorizando opções próximas mesmo quando a consulta digitada não for exata. Resultados distantes só deveriam aparecer *** demanda — por exemplo, por meio de um botão “expandir raio da busca”.
O sistema de busca também deveria considerar categorias, variações, sinônimos e até padrões anteriores de uso.
O aplicativo poderia ainda apresentar os resultados em formatos adaptados ao tipo de busca. Por exemplo, quem procura por “Starbucks” quer o maior número possível de opções próximas, e não um local específico; já uma busca por “aeroporto” exige menos resultados, focados na confirmação do destino correto.
Em vez de tratar o Google como um concorrente interno, o Waze poderia abraçar de vez o motor de busca do Google Maps como referência - e integrá-lo mais diretamente, acrescentando a curadoria de conteúdo e os insights colaborativos que só o Waze é capaz de oferecer.
-
27 votes
-
2 votes
-
2 votes
-
2 votes
-
2 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment I agree. It would be much more useful to display the points on a map, for example.
-
4 votes
-
7 votes
-
19 votes
-
55 votes
Indeed, whenever you add a new segment, you are required to fill in the Street Name. Otherwise, the segment remains “bleeding.”
I fully understand that requiring a Street Name may originally have been a strategy to prevent the uncontrolled creation of unnamed segments. This was also the approach used for segments created directly from the app via the Pave tool.
Today, however, this requirement has become an obstacle in the editor’s workflow. The editor has to perform no fewer than four clicks: expand the address box, expand the dropdown for Street Name, select “None,” and then confirm. This is a non-trivial amount of work for every new segment - and it still does not ensure that the editor actually provides a Street Name.
At this point, we already have a much more mature division of labor among editors, as well as several tools (scripts) for tagging and reviewing unnamed segments.
It is also worth noting that the Street Name is the only mandatory field in the address set:
* if you do not fill in the City, WME automatically sets it to “None”;
* State and Country are already prefilled by WME.
I therefore suggest allowing the user to save a segment without entering a Street Name, exactly the same way it already works for the City field.
Also, this idea complies with the C.A.R.™ formula:
* Cheap: easy for Waze devs to implement;
* Aligned: it does not break or undermine the platform’s logic;
* Relevant: it has a significant impact on a real problem faced by editors.