Posts and Flags and Moderation, Oh My!


Unfortunately, I can’t. The way that Discourse (our forum provider) works is to allow any forum member the opportunity to flag any post as being inappropriate, without needing to specify why or what part of the post is inappropriate. If three users flag the same post as inappropriate, it is removed.


I wouldn’t agree. Language differ between age groups, cultural groups etc. Even though most people can somewhat agree on what is foul language it is still in my view subjective and depends on context.

To quote your introduction in the topic:

Some people might say pissed is a bad word but to me it’s not. However I consider writing in caps very rude. It comes off as shouting loudly into the face of however reads it. It also decreases readability for people with bad eye sight or dyslexia. You probably don’t think it’s that bad to write in all caps (if you did I don’t think you’d do it) which proves how subjective this is. Saying someone should get fired could definitely be called a personal attack.

Again, I haven’t myself flagged the posts so I don’t know why they were flagged, just bringing up possible explanations.


I would agree that post was borderline in that I used all caps. Yes, it is shouting. But I think the shouting was justified under the circumstances. In the first place,Trimble’s act of degrading their product to the point of being unusable for the key purpose many people have paid for is outrageous conduct that deserves to be called out in no uncertain terms. But what really angers me is Trimble falsely blaming the problem on Google. Google sells their imagery. Trimble has told me, and this user community, the data is not available. That is false. The data is available to Trimble if they are willing to pay for it. And the price isn’t even that high. But Trimble has made a business decision to not pay that price to save a few pennies. So yes, I was provoked into shouting.

Frank McIntyre


I can, here is one I just flagged for flamming (ie, not contributing positively to the discussion and only serving to exacerbate bad feelings toward Trimble in an inflammatory manner.):

… which was pointing at several of the posts by projectmanager that were hidden (not by Trimble,) but by the community members (including myself as I flagged all his posts except the first,) for flooding the thread.

Flooding is against the rules in any online forum.

We discussed flooding (and this particular case) in the following Meta topic thread:

I (myself and others) had no problem allowing him to make his initial statement (although I did disagree with part of what he said in a later post.) Others let his 2nd repetitive post squeak by. But all his posts after that, were just too much and obvious flooding.

The rules of decorum are not suspended just because participants in the discussion are angry.


After making my first post on this subject my subsequent posts were replies to comments made about it. At this point I have lost track just how many there have been and it is possible that my replies were not properly connected to the comment or reply the various people from Trimble made to them. I have not gratuitously flooded the discussion thread.


I did not say you did, I said projectmanager did, which was why his posts were hidden, not because of the content as your inflammatory post said.

Most of them are fine (in this respect) as you clicked the reply button for specific posts by other people. This is shown in your posts, and readers can even click the “replied to” avatar to jump back up to that specific post that you replied to.

Occasionally you just replied to the previous post, so no harm there.

Once however, you actually replied to yourself, which might not make much sense to new users, but you were actually pointing at one of your posts that was hidden. So it does make sense, in that you were speaking of what the “replied to” was pointing at.

It all looks like this is not a problem. Ie, it looks like it is clear who you are replying to, when you are replying.
Sometimes you had just made posts that were to the general audience, and this is fine as well.

You might learn to leverage the hilighted quote reply. (Instructions are given in the Welcome to SketchUp Community thread, Replying section.)

You repeatedly make mention of not knowing how to use Discourse forums well yet, or being new here.

Each new user receives a private message from the system on how to do the basics. It should still be in your PMs. (Access via the envelope icon on your avatar menu, top right of screen.) Here is a tip topic that gives a link:

Checking your badges,
it shows that you have not received the “Read Guidelines” badge as yet.

(I find this ironic that an attorney would not have read the rules.) :wink:



Appreciate the clarification. And having been on this bulletin board for a few days I think I have figured out how to reply to specific posts, or replies to posts, by others.



It only reaffirms that you still don’t “get” how things work here in a Discourse forum.

I explained why the post you reference was flagged by me (ie flamming) in the post above:

Secondly, I am now flagging that response for 2 reasons:

(1) It continues to be inflammatory and make FALSE accusations against Trimble, Inc. (They are not hiding your posts. Readers are flagging them, and the Discourse forum engine is collapsing them. But they can still be read, if readers desire by clicking the “View hidden content” link.)

(2) It is off-topic for the “Add Location” thread (which is why I created THIS thread in the Meta category,) for us to discuss flagging to everyone’s heart’s content.
Basically you’re creating “poor lil’ ol’ me” posts that do not have anything to do with the thread’s topic.


As to your first point, since the Discourse mechanism does not allow me to see who flagged the post I may have incorrectly assumed it was someone from Trimble. And since, as you point out, it takes three flags to hide a post I have no reason to doubt that one or more of the flags came from a Trimble employee.

As to your second point, all of my posts have been squarely on the topic of the Add Location feature. I have consistently pointed out in every post how the degradation in the feature is the result of Trimble’s business decision to switch to a lower quality source of the geo location imagery. I have consistently pointed out that the remedy for the problem is completely under Trimble’s control. And I have consistently pointed out that anyone who paid for Trimble’s services and has been damaged by Trimble’s decision to degrade it have a cause of action against Trimble. It would benefit everyone affected if some of those people took legal action against Trimble if Trimble does not voluntarily fix the problem by going back to Google, or some other provider of high quality imagery.


[quote=“FrankMcIntyre1951, post:8, topic:45697”]
But what really angers me is Trimble falsely blaming the problem on Google. Google sells their imagery. Trimble has told me, and this user community, the data is not available. That is false. The data is available to Trimble if they are willing to pay for it.[/quote]

Frank - you’re a lawyer, right? As a lawyer, isn’t doing your research and getting your facts straight before asserting your argument — especially one that impugns the motives of one of the parties — a basic requirement of good lawyering?

Your argument fails to make the critical distinction by incorrectly interpreting the implications for SU of the IP Restrictions Clauses of the API Terms of Service as explained by Bryce in this post:

Google’s terms of service narrowly define how their geo apis can be used. Everyone needs to understand that Google’s APIs DISPLAY data. Google does not give away their data for modification which is what the Add Location feature requires.

SketchUp’s Add Location requires that the imagery and other data be imported into and stored inside the skp file. Geo modeling requires that people have the right to make derivative works from that imagery. All of these actions are expressly prohibited Google Maps API Terms of service1. see section 10.5 Intellectual Property.

So yes, the imagery is available for a price to outside parties, but the data is no longer available in the way that SU requires to enable the Add Location function.

Perhaps one of the reasons then for your hidden posts, is not only your overly-aggressive tone (SHOUTING), … but more importantly, that you got your basic facts wrong, then used that as a basis for essentially a ‘bad-faith’ claim against Trimble. That can tend to upset people, (in this case, the other community members who hid your comments — not Trimble employees, as you incorrectly asserted)

I do have sympathy for people whose livelihood has been negatively affected by this change, and for the fact that the advance notice underplayed (or ignored) the degradation of functionality and quality that would attend the change. So I understand how upset people are.

And I appreciate Bryce’s active and frank participation in the discussion — even if I am also disappointed by the current state of things, and the opaqueness of Trimble decision-making vis-a-vis the SU development roadmap.

But shouting, asserting false facts, impugning intent and threatening legal action doesn’t seem to me to be an effective way to correct the situation.



You are completely correct that lawyers have a duty to research and assure their statements are true before they make them. Actually everyone has that duty. And in this case both Trimble and I have the duty to assure that statements we make about the source of the degradation problem is accurate.

So here is why I believe my statement that the source of the degradation problem is Trimble rather than Google. First, when I say Trimble, I mean people who appear to be employees of Trimble as I am under the impression Bryce is. Bryce’s original statement included the statement that “Google does not give away their data for modification.” By qualifying his subsequent statements with that statement Bryce rendered the entirety of his claim to be misleading. I assume he is correct that Google does not “give away” its data for modification. But I have researched Google’s terms and conditions for “selling” their data. Based on my research it appears that Trimble can buy the data and resell it to us under a license to do so granted by Google. I have asked Bryce and a couple of other Trimble employees to directly address this point on more than one occasion. They have so far failed to do so. Since they have had ample notice of my allegation that their statements regarding the availability of licensing are false and misleading, and they have not directly refuted the allegation, it is entirely reasonable for me to assume my allegations are true.



I am not a lawyer, but does Bryce’s original response not address that, directly?


I didn’t flag any of your posts and read all your hidden content.

However it bothers me that you mix valid arguments with others that do not seem so valid, use a tone that isn’t in my opinion fit and, in the end, your call to action looks like that it could be profitable to you as an attourney.

An opportunity? Or an act of altruism?

This makes me question what drives you but I haven’t flagged you once. In my opinion I don’t believe it helps, but you are free to make this kind of “Discourse”.

Overall your intervention did have the merit of bringing some further clarification from Trimble employees and openning this secondary post.



Let me first assure you that, although I was an attorney for many years, I have left the practice of law to focus on bringing renewable solar energy on line in western Colorado as rapidly as possible before we pollute ourselves off the planet or destroy the world in wars over the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

Having said that, my shrill tone in this discussion was kicked off by the sudden and unexpected loss of a functional SketchUp facility that was instrumental in both my design and presentation of roof top PV systems. My displeasure has been aggravated by what I believe to be false representations made by SketchUp employees to this forum to the effect that the degradation in geolocation imagery is all Google’s fault because Google will no longer allow SketchUp to buy Google’s image data. I have directly asked several people who appear to be SketchUp employees, including Jody, James, Bryce and Aarron to clearly, directly, and unambiguously answer the question of whether the unavailability of the Google imagery is due to Google’s unwillingness to sell it or SketchUp’s unwillingness to buy it. Jody, James, Bryce, and Aaron have refused to provide the clear, direct, and unambiguous answer I requested. In light of their refusal to answer I can only assume my assertion is true that the current unavailability of quality imagery is due to SketchUp’s business decision not to enter into an arrangement with Google to buy data that Google is willing to sell.

I have no intention of backing off this issue until the truth comes out. If it turns out that I am wrong I will apologize to everyone. If it turns out I am right then I hope to force SketchUp to restore the functionality to SketchUp that many of us need.

Thank you for taking the time to chip in your two cent.



Thanks for this clarification. The issue affects us all to different extents. You’ve been very active on defending a certain position, with right reason, but I wasn’t really sure on your intentions. They are clearer now and sound legitimate to me which is enough. The form you use doesn’t affect me much though it wouldn’t be my option.

Let me just state that I have, for a lot of reasons, a feeling towards Trimble and specifically the Sketchup team, that doesn’t fit at all with the way you see them regarding this question. Basically, I trust they are doing the best they can.


To follow up on a conversation I had yesterday with Robert Sandberg at Google. Robert confirmed that the imagery we were used to using prior to the SketchUp degradation of its Add Location facility on May 22, 2017 is still available for sale by Google. The dataset is apparently called by another name but it is available. Trimble would have to obtain it under Google’s Premium Plan rather than under its Free Plan and pay an annual subscription fee of $10,000 per year for the right to incorporate the data into SketchUp Pro since Trimble charges money for a pro plan. Trimble could still obtain the data a no charge from Google if it did not charge a fee to SketchUp users.

This is, of course, contrary toTrimble’s repeated assertions to this forum over the past week and a half, that the data is no longer available. Moreover, this morning I accessed Google’s imaging data through another product called PVSketch. PVSketch charges a fee for their product so I assume PV Sketch is paying a fee to Google for the right to incorporate Google’s data in the PVSketch product. A snip of the drawing I made this morning is attached to this post.I will continue to follow up on this issue. And I again urge Trimble to pay the relatively small fee it needs to pay Google to fix the problem with SketchUp that has so completely debilitated so many of its users.



Frank, wrong thread.
This thread is about the flags and moderation.
Your last post needs to be moved to the Add Location thread.
(ADD: But I see you’ve copied it to a new topic of it’s own instead.)


Dan is right, this fits in the other thread.

I hope your post and this answer get’s moved by moderation.

If your info is true, then I agree that, even if I’m not the one who should say if it’s small or not, I imagine that 10000$ would be a relativelly small fee to pay, considering the idea I have for the amount of Sketchup Pro users existing…

In fact, considering we are talking about Google and a very expensive to get data, I think 10000$ is far too small considering all Trimble’s database.

I suspect there is a catch there.


Trimble purchased Sketchup from Google at a time when the program no longer fit with Google’s product line. Google offered a generous five year transition time, this from a company that has abruptly cancelled a number of products. I feel that both company’s deserve a little credit for this, not flames and near libel.
The time wasted by the anger, flames and obscenity on this forum where we are supposed to be supportive of one and other is a wast of time for us all. Of course constructive criticism is always helpful.


This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.