Nokia faked the Lumia 920 PureView stills from the video too [Update: Nokia responds!]

Nokia's been the center of a little bit of a press storm after it was shown to have faked their PureView HD video advertisement. The video implied it was filmed on the device, but a reflection in a window during the advertisement clearly shows a camera crew, not a Nokia Lumia.

Now, Youssef Sarhan, a designer over on Svbtle has pointed out that the photos that were shown as an example in same video appear to be fake as well. Youssef points out that the telltale sign is the light diffractions in the photos that were taken in Helsinki, Finland.

He points out that the first problem with the images is that these sorts of direct lights don't actually exist in Helsinki like the images suggest, and that it's actually 'ambiently diffused' in the area rather than being direct, shining lights.

Wikipedia says that "diffraction occurs when light hits an opaque edge in the light path, such as the aperture blades in the lens. Diffraction causes the light to be spread out in a plane that is perpendicular to the edge from where the diffraction occurs. So you get two points of sparkle from one edge."

If you look at the photo above, you can clearly see what we're talking about here. The streams of light reaching out from the light sources are the giveaway. To take it further, if you look at another still shot published separately by Nokia, pictured below, the same effect isn't occurring in the photo, confusingly meaning that the company is mixing actual PureView photos with fake ones.

Youssef points out that a camera with with an fixed aperture of f/2 could not possibly generate so many light diffractions, and he also goes on to say that only a camera with f/22 -- like a DSLR -- could generate these kinds of images. 

It's not clear why Nokia would go out of their way to deceive their users like this, since they seem pretty confident that the PureView technology is up to the challenge, but these images are looking almost certainly to be not from a PureView device at all.

It's disappointing for a company that seems so confident that this technology is groundbreaking, doing something like this that seems to imply they aren't so sure their technology is enough. We've reached out to Nokia for comment, we'll let you know when we hear back.

Update: We promised we'd reach out to Nokia, and we just got a response back. We directly asked Nokia if the above images were taken on a Lumia 920, and if they were modified at all, and the first time we got a response from Nokia was an email essentially pointing us to the apology post. We pushed them again on this more specific thing, and Nokia's press team responded saying:

Contrary to information posted on some blogger and technology websites, all still images found on the PureView page on Nokia.com were taken using a Nokia Lumia 920 prototype phone. They were not faked.

Regarding the video we released, as we said in our apology we should have posted a disclaimer stating the entire video – including all three sequences – was a representation of optical image stabilization (OIS) only. A disclaimer stating that the video was not shot using a Nokia Lumia 920 is now clearly shown under the video. The images shown at the top of Youssef Sarhan’s blog seem to be screen grabs from the same video – something he says himself: This is a still from Nokia’s new product promo video.

From what Nokia's seemingly saying -- and it takes some reading between the lines here -- it seems these stills are indeed fake, since they were part of the OIS advertisement video and were only intended as a "representation" of the product. Just to be clear, this is because these stills do not show up on the PureView page, and were the only ones that appeared in the video. 

We're a little surprised Nokia had to go this far, and can't figure out why they would need to fake the stills too, even in the video, when the stills on the actual PureView website are good enough in themselves.

Update 2: Does it get any worse? The below image has emerged of the photo shoot, which pretty much confirms any doubts.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Five reasons to use CyanogenMod ROMs on your Android device

Next Story

iPhone 5 smuggled out of plant booting next to 4S [Update]

106 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is really overblown. It is clear that the OIS video is for a TV Commercial and all stills from it. Any promo you are doing for commercials will always use professional grade equipment until the day that consumer grade is equal to it that includes professional video and sound equipment.

The still shots that say it is from a Lumia 920 are the ones that are real and made clear.

All of this is very normal for tech demos on video technology.

Dear nokia:

first, u guys show off a phone, tall "WILL" be released sometime this year (really ??), and that has no price, nor a date to be on sale (for REAL), not even a real done OS (ya winblows 8 c*** isnt done on mobile, not even on c*** desktops)

and now u fake video and pics, that that phone cant get near to that quality.

thats why ure DEAD for years. And i hope u keep dead, for the good of the market.

I'm tired of repeat that, market has two players only, and ure none of em.

Get used to it !

tester.br said,
Dear nokia:

first, u guys show off a phone, tall "WILL" be released sometime this year (really ??), and that has no price, nor a date to be on sale (for REAL), not even a real done OS (ya winblows 8 c*** isnt done on mobile, not even on c*** desktops)

and now u fake video and pics, that that phone cant get near to that quality.

thats why ure DEAD for years. And i hope u keep dead, for the good of the market.

I'm tired of repeat that, market has two players only, and ure none of em.

Get used to it !


Why would you want someone off the market? Competition is what drives the market...

Brony said,
At night, the sky is blue

O_o


No, it's clear. The blue color you see is not the actual sky color. It's called Rayleigh scattering. Look it up

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Sep 6 2012, 8:11pm :

Joni_78 said,
FTW Owen? Nokia has not faked anything.

In Engadget's interview with Nokia CEO he explicitly said those photos where from a lumia 920 so he sort of lied.

Owen I think you are missing the point, those "stills" are part of the video promotion showing how OIS "works"

The pictures released are really from a 920 and they beat anything out there in low light situation

As the two videos in question were not shot or presented as being Lumia 920 video, but as examples to explain the concept of OIS I really do not see where the term fake comes in. Badly communicated maybe, but there is nothing fake going on here..

paulheu said,
As the two videos in question were not shot or presented as being Lumia 920 video, but as examples to explain the concept of OIS I really do not see where the term fake comes in. Badly communicated maybe, but there is nothing fake going on here..

Exactly,
If they had taken the girl and placed her on the background in post processing then I would say it was fake. It may have not been taken with the 920 but that does not mean it's fake.

This post is silly

(As an aside, they never claimed or described those pictures as Lumia 920 photos, they described them as OIS, though I suppose that doesn't matter much )

ThePitt said,
lol @ nokia. First move to m$ and now this?. haha. The bottom has no limits

haha my thoughts exactly

This is dumb. I don't care if Nokia faked them. As long as the actual images and video are impressive, WHAT DOES IT MATTER???

Correct me if I am wrong but how are they supposed to make that video without that crew or set ??? But that doesn't mean that those pictures are fake

Wow the boner love for this device on this site is ridiculous. Worse than any Apple or Android fan-set I have come across.

It's an okay phone with above average phone camera. Pull Nokia's dick out of your mouth for a second.

You should update the article to point out that while the stills are fake (and who honestly thought they were real after Nokia said the video was fake? the stills were from the same video) the picture of the girl standing on a balcony in front of some buildings is genuine.

That is the evolution in technology that Nokia have actually made. Check out the pureview section of their site for images that were actually taken by a Nokia Lumia 920. I don't know why they felt the need to mislead people, the genuine pictures were enough to impress me as they are a big leap in low-light image capturing. That said, the author of this article shouldn't mislead people by making it sound like all of Nokia's images are fake. They aren't, just the ones from the video were (again, how can stills of a fake video be genuine? they are stills OF THE FAKE).

Oh well. 5/10, Nokia

It's not about whether the phone is capable of high quality images/videos. We've already seen that even if the adverts weren't shot using 920, they are still ahead of the pack. What's bad about this is that Nokia gave their haters the hole that can be attacked. Tech savvy people may be able to see this demos and hands on but when average Joes heard from a friend that Nokia's cam is just a scam, they might easily believe it and might hurt this amazing phone's potential. I love this phone because it's not just another phone whose main feature is million-cores, terrabytes of ram. etc. so I want this to succeed.

Neowin and other tech sites are going to have a lot of headlines in the future because every other company does the same thing for ads. They want the product seen in the best light. Doesn't mean the product can't actually do as advertised.

Are you going to call them all out ?

WooHoo!!! said,

Are you going to call them all out ?

Ideally they definatley should be. At least from here on out imho.

Well at least they came out right away with a statement. Truth of the matter is ALL manufacturers do this.

Does anyone remember the lawsuit Apple was dealing with over the iPhone (or it might have been the iPhone 3G) where the plaintiffs alleged Apple falsely advertised the speed of the product? The commercial was the iPhone bringing up web pages and downloading google maps at near instantaneous speed. It makes for a great advertisement, until the consumer expects that and then it goes into the area of false advertisement.

Nice spin on the update. Nokia clearly state that the images are not faked but you then go on to say that they are. Pathetic.

jakem1 said,
Nice spin on the update. Nokia clearly state that the images are not faked but you then go on to say that they are. Pathetic.

Did you READ the post properly? Are you SURE? These images, that were NOT released on the PureView site and were part of the OIS video WERE GENERATED. SIMULATED.

Owen W said,

Did you READ the post properly? Are you SURE? These images, that were NOT released on the PureView site and were part of the OIS video WERE GENERATED. SIMULATED.
To be fair, they already admidted that the video was fake. Saying that screenshots of a fake video are fake is just beating a dead horse, I don't know what your beef is with Nokia but you're trying to smear them twice as though they're two seperate events - they're not, and it causes me to question your ethics as a blogger.

Owen W said,

Did you READ the post properly? Are you SURE? These images, that were NOT released on the PureView site and were part of the OIS video WERE GENERATED. SIMULATED.

In the original apology nokia says (on Nokia conversations):" In an effort to demonstrate the benefits of optical image stabilization (which eliminates blurry images and improves pictures shot in low light conditions), we produced a video that simulates what we will be able to deliver with OIS." Why would you assume that the still parts of the video then would not be "simulated" when they say that the video they produced is "simulated"? I see little foundation for your accusations.

greenwizard88 said,
To be fair, they already admidted that the video was fake. Saying that screenshots of a fake video are fake is just beating a dead horse, I don't know what your beef is with Nokia but you're trying to smear them twice as though they're two seperate events - they're not, and it causes me to question your ethics as a blogger.

Actually the subject now is the images not the video; I do not know about you but when I take a picture I do not have a set available as the one shown.
Now does other companies do the same? Absolutely but you cannot rob a bank and plead not guilty because others did it before, can you?
I do not care if it is Nokia, Apple or ABC: a faked, enhanced or retouched picture, video, or a trailer showing a device functionalities is misleading advertisement and as a customer it upset me.

Just let it go. Maybe he just need attention like the Verge blogger. Bad reporters don't care if possitive or negative feedbacks anyway.

There is nothing wrong with questioning whether the promo shots were legit. It would be bad for Nokia if they were fake and deceiving but good for consumers. If they are legit, then this is a massive plus for Nokia's technology and of course good for consumers. Win win for consumers by publishing these articles fake or not as you see

Get over yourself.

In the coming days, more photos/videos will come to "light" and all this BS can be taken out to the pasture and shot. It's ridiculous but hey, any publicitiy is good publicity so long as Nokia can say "look it really works, here's the proof, now zip it."

This is poor journalism. You are publishing a story based on someone else's 'theory' without any proof. Nokia's head of imaging department Damian Dinning has just tweeted the below link stating

'Real sample shots taken with #Lumia920 #PureView http://www.nokia.com/global/products/pureview/ Note these are very early prototypes hence reduced file sizes for now. '

http://www.nokia.com/global/products/pureview/

You need to now update your story and admit your mistake else it's complete ignorance on your part.

Really impressive low light performance.

Anyway I would not care that much if those are taken with or without the actual lumia 920. Every pub campain exagerate a little bit fact to add punch. This is like exagerating to make dumb people understand xD As long as final product show a big difference in performance as these exemples show us.

In summary then, the video of the woman on the bike was shot via a dslr camera of some sort, proven, yes? In response, nokia released an actual video using the 920...

The low light shots is what is the current issue, some "experts" are claiming that they are fake, though recent youtube footage from the conference says otherwise?

Basically the only people who know are those that have actually tried the camera out for themselves, which is what I will do as soon as it becomes available.

Some of the comments are showing an incredibly blind mentality of Defending Nokia whatever the case, they ****ed up, get over it, even Apple fanboys are not this crazy.

The arguments of so what others do it is not convincing, Nokia tried to deceive blatantly and got caught, trying to defend this with, oh at least they apologized and what not is BS.

Maybe they took the photos with another camera because they didn't have a working prototype of the camera?

Youssef points out that a camera with with an fixed aperture of f/2 could not possibly generate so many light diffractions, and he also goes on to say that only a camera with f/22 -- like a DSLR -- could generate these kinds of images.

Youssef obviously don't give a clue in photography. Higher F number means less light you get onto sensor. With 22 you will have a black screen with same exposure, but... Not everything depend on aperture - amount of light you get onto sensor also depend on sensor sensitivity (ISO) and exposure time. Longer exposure means more light and optical stab allow you to make little bit longer exposures than without it. But just a little. You can get a maximum of 1/50 second from hand. With stab you get as maximum as 1/15 - 1/10 of a second. But not seconds, so not sure if night picture is not a fake.

And most high-level lenses, btw, have aperture lower of 2,8. In average to get a good shot you are using between 5,6 and 7,1. Only fixes allow to you have that high aperture down to 1,2, 1,4 and 1,6 and 2,0. Not saying about picture quality, just commenting technical illiteracy.

Edited by coth, Sep 6 2012, 8:20am :

Do you really think that iPhone picts on Apple presentations, ads and websites at each iPhone releases are taken with an iPhone ?
Come on, its advertising !

TheDogsBed said,
Some people really do have way too much spare time on their hands.

Yes, seriously. The only reasons to make a big deal of this is:
- One *wants* Nokia to fail - perhaps some are shorting the stock? Or, works for a competing company?
- One *likes* to deride when possible. What does this say about him/her as a person?

"but a reflection in a window during the advertisement clearly shows a camera crew" where is the camera crew? show me a ****ing still with the camera crew reflection...damn you guys are really sinking low these days?

jorel009 said,
"but a reflection in a window during the advertisement clearly shows a camera crew" where is the camera crew? show me a ****ing still with the camera crew reflection...damn you guys are really sinking low these days?

That's in the video I think. The still images haven't really been proven to be fake yet.

Is this like the iphone Siri Ads which were embelshed to say the least. I don't see harm they are just trying to get out a list of unique features.

oh god ****ing dammit neowin....don't make me take you off the ad-blocker white list. i hope this fades away (that is....if the accusations are false), otherwise the market will have a field day. your hyped up story about them being down in the markets has already been picked up by other news/blog outlets. you know that the entire market was down right? even your fanboy love child apple was down in the markets as well.

oh oh.. caught lying.. how far they have fallen.. I guess you gotta do it when you are at the brink of bankruptcy.

Boz said,
oh oh.. caught lying.. how far they have fallen.. I guess you gotta do it when you are at the brink of bankruptcy.

Not like another phone manufacturer had to go back and put "some sequences shortened" because they were caught editing their commercials to make their devices to appear faster than they really are. Or being sued right now because their commercials give an unrealistic voice recognition performance. That company is far from bankruptcy. But don't worry, since that company is magical any disagreement means you are a hater.

Put money where your mouth is. Show me where the proof that Nokia 920 camera doesn't live up to the demonstration.

Boz said,
oh oh.. caught lying.. how far they have fallen.. I guess you gotta do it when you are at the brink of bankruptcy.

Boz said,
oh oh.. caught lying.. how far they have fallen.. I guess you gotta do it when you are at the brink of bankruptcy.

Do you ever not hate??

All companies skew what they show to some degree.

MDboyz said,
Put money where your mouth is. Show me where the proof that Nokia 920 camera doesn't live up to the demonstration.

Actuallu it goes the other way around: show mw that the 920 live up to the demonstration and I will consider opening my wallet.......

Boz said,
oh oh.. caught lying.. how far they have fallen.. I guess you gotta do it when you are at the brink of bankruptcy.

Apple has more money than any company in history and even they simulate features on their devices. I saw the actual one on one comparisons (videos on youtube) and it's enough to prove the camera is better than most.

laserfloyd said,

Apple has more money than any company in history and even they simulate features on their devices. I saw the actual one on one comparisons (videos on youtube) and it's enough to prove the camera is better than most.

I am tired of everybody trying to copy Steve Jobs and speaking by hyperboles; I miss the presentations made by Bill Gates......

watchthisspace said,
Do you ever not hate??

He lives in his own bubble believing every company is evil. Except for Google of course; the shining beacon of transparency and honesty.

nohone said,
Not like another phone manufacturer had to go back and put "some sequences shortened" because they were caught editing their commercials to make their devices to appear faster than they really are.

I wonder if this picture http://9to5mac.files.wordpress...012-03-07-at-2-38-05-pm.png was really taken with an iPad and not put through Photoshop. Can someone link me to the article here on Neowin about this outrage? No? Oh. Also http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg.

dr_crabman said,

I wonder if this picture http://9to5mac.files.wordpress...012-03-07-at-2-38-05-pm.png was really taken with an iPad and not put through Photoshop. Can someone link me to the article here on Neowin about this outrage? No? Oh. Also http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg.

Is it or is not it? I remember people here screaming, correctly IMO, about iPhone issue with the antenna. I do not care which company artificially "enhance" the supposed capacities of its devices; for me is just false advertisement, simple as that.

Point isnt whether or not the fake pics look like real ones. The point is, why did Nokia fake the pics if a REAL demonstration is that good? There should be no reason to do so. This leads people to think something is up.

techbeck said,
Point isnt whether or not the fake pics look like real ones. The point is, why did Nokia fake the pics if a REAL demonstration is that good? There should be no reason to do so. This leads people to think something is up.

It's still not proven that they are even faked.

this guy obviously has no idea what technology the 920 has both hardware and software that produces these excellent images as shown in the real life tests earlier today against many other smartphones and simply put it blew them completely away. This article should be removed or edited

korupt_one said,
this guy obviously has no idea what technology the 920 has both hardware and software that produces these excellent images as shown in the real life tests earlier today against many other smartphones and simply put it blew them completely away. This article should be removed or edited

And you know said technology inside and out?

Owen W said,

And you know said technology inside and out?

This is a "tech site", so chances are ALOT of people here know more than you do.

Toysoldier said,

This is a "tech site", so chances are ALOT of people here know more than you do.

This is a tech site, so probably A LOT of people here think they know more than they actually do.

NastySasquatch said,

This is a tech site, so probably A LOT of people here think they know more than they actually do.

Like Owen, the self proclaimed mobile specialist?

I would do some research before posting a potentially libelous article. You can say that someone claims that they are faked, but to blatantly declare they are fake in the headline without doing any fact checking is just horrible.

A point in this by the way is that in order to get a prominent diffraction at small apertures like f/22 you have to take a longer exposure.

If you have a short exposure at f2.0 combined with a short exposure time (helps if you have a stand to hold the camera steady) you can easily get diffraction effects in the photo.

Just goes to show...not everyone is an expert that claims to be on the internet.

Edited by Shane Nokes, Sep 6 2012, 4:32am :

Note: The above comment was made before the article title was edited and my prior comment no longer allows editing. The original title was: Nokia faked the Lumia 920 PureView stills, too

Shane Nokes said,
Note: The above comment was made before the article title was edited and my prior comment no longer allows editing. The original title was: Nokia faked the Lumia 920 PureView stills, too

Yeah, I was still editing the piece as it went live. I doubt you could get diffraction at this level at f/2.0 - it would be pretty difficult, but there is a distinct possibility that the way the PureView processes images causes this. Thus, I have reached out to Nokia

This article needs to be straight deleted and the source is a n00b. The amount of diffraction does not depend on the focal ratio but rather on the physical aperture - which is very small for a phone camera and this means there is lots of diffraction. There is certainly enough inhomogeneity in a phone's optical system to see some spikes in a long exposure of bright lights.

Anyways you don't have to take my word for it - just search in bing images for ‘iphone 4s night shots' and you will find many counter examples to the article's contention. You must either accept this as a proof or else you're claiming an international conspiracy of phone photographers.

Shane Nokes said,
I would do some research before posting a potentially libelous article. You can say that someone claims that they are faked, but to blatantly declare they are fake in the headline without doing any fact checking is just horrible.

A point in this by the way is that in order to get a prominent diffraction at small apertures like f/22 you have to take a longer exposure.

If you have a short exposure at f2.0 combined with a short exposure time (helps if you have a stand to hold the camera steady) you can easily get diffraction effects in the photo.

Just goes to show...not everyone is an expert that claims to be on the internet.

Check the images of the cars passing by: the pictures were not taken using a short exposure time.

Owen W said,

Yeah, I was still editing the piece as it went live. I doubt you could get diffraction at this level at f/2.0 - it would be pretty difficult, but there is a distinct possibility that the way the PureView processes images causes this. Thus, I have reached out to Nokia

You should also delete the second last paragraph then because it clearly states that the photos have been faked when the reality is that you have no idea. And don't you think it would have been more professional to contact Nokia before posting such a shoddy article?

Fritzly said,

Check the images of the cars passing by: the pictures were not taken using a short exposure time.

It looks fairly short to me. The car is blurred but not surprising if it's travelling at 30+ MPH

Shane Nokes said,
It looks fairly short to me. The car is blurred but not surprising if it's travelling at 30+ MPH

And your assumption about the speed of the car is based on what?
Helsinky average speed limit is around 30 Km/h......
AFAIK the car could be going at any speed but the detail made me curious.
A lot of ove-reacting people here .......

Daniel Tablas said,
You mean what I see on TV usually isn't real? Shocking

Wait. What do you mean ice cream in commercials is actually mashed potatoes?

The milk on cereal in commercials is really glue? Get out!

They use a clothes steamer to add steam to hot foods, like fajitas and steak, in commercials just before they shoot a take? Heck no! I don't believe it.

Restaurants throw water on a skillet of fajitas to make it sizzle like that and it's not really the fajitas? Shut yo' mouth!

Actors look so perfect because of makeup and some of them you wouldn't recognize them if you saw them without that makeup? Nuh uh!

People... this happens ALL the time. The only thing Nokia is guilty of is not putting the "Simulated Images" in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. They should've done it to avoid this very thing. As we all know, there are those out there that think they make a living taking to the internet to hate thing. Some do, however.

Its just like the TV adverts for HD tvs, they show you a blurred image then say this is what SD tv is like then they unblur it and show a crystal clear image and say this is what HD tvs look like, well clearly not, I am watching it from my SD tv.

The point is they are just showing an example.

Toysoldier said,
Its just like the TV adverts for HD tvs, they show you a blurred image then say this is what SD tv is like then they unblur it and show a crystal clear image and say this is what HD tvs look like, well clearly not, I am watching it from my SD tv.

The point is they are just showing an example.

Note that they only say "Using Nokia PureView", you could also see these videos as a show-case of the ideas behind PureView as the ultimate goal of what PureView has to/will offer.

It is like one of those infomercial where it show the competitor product (the before) and the new product, the before is managed by clumsy people and sometimes it is in black and white.

Maybe you need to do some researches before reporting the news. Go to youtube and watch all the demonstration of Nokia 920 in real life.

MDboyz said,
Maybe you need to do some researches before reporting the news. Go to youtube and watch all the demonstration of Nokia 920 in real life.

Oh, you mean the ones that are all indoors?

Since you have no knowledge about its technology, you must listen to this guys and start with that first.

Toysoldier said,

Well that would be a good start.

Owen W said,

Oh, you mean the ones that are all indoors?

Yeah. Indoors. In low light conditions. You know, the conditions where camera phones typically fail miserably. Outdoor tests in bright light will still look great, but won't show off the huge advantage PureView has over the competition in low light conditions.

rfirth said,

Yeah. Indoors. In low light conditions. You know, the conditions where camera phones typically fail miserably. Outdoor tests in bright light will still look great, but won't show off the huge advantage PureView has over the competition in low light conditions.

Take a lot of pictures with the lights off, do you? Dusk or night time shoots would be more of a test than indoors with controlled lighting conditions. Outside the lighting conditions vary greatly in the evening. Oh, how about a concert? You know, when the headlining band comes on and it's dark - then the stage lights start flashing or shining in your direction causing your phone to constantly adjust to extreme lumen variances.

Screw 'low light' indoor conditions. Outside is where phones live and die when taking pictures. Nobody cares about those stupid "look at how drunk I am" party pictures.

KCRic said,
Outside is where phones live and die when taking pictures. Nobody cares about those stupid "look at how drunk I am" party pictures.

You can't be serious. You're seriously, with a straight face, saying that there is no use case for indoor pictures?

I have kids. They do funny, interesting things - *indoors* - that I often fail to get pictures of on my phone. I bought a Sony RX100 for this reason (it performs wonderfully). At least half my photos are indoors.

Owen W said,

That doesn't mean these are fake. That's also a very well planned challenge for Lumia devices to excel in

I call conspiracy!

vanx said,
Is Helinski the same place as Helsinki? I have never been to Finland, so I don't know

Guessing the "Report a problem with article" link doesn't appear on your screen?

vanx said,
Is Helinski the same place as Helsinki? I have never been to Finland, so I don't know

Google Maps is blocked in your country?

jamieakers said,

Guessing the "Report a problem with article" link doesn't appear on your screen?


Jesus Christ, it's a question he put, he genuinely didn't know.

The "report the problem link" phrase is overused sometimes I think...

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

Jesus Christ, it's a question he put, he genuinely didn't know.

The "report the problem link" phrase is overused sometimes I think...

GS:mac

He should google it then.

spy beef said,

He should google it then.

I did know and most of the time I would use the report button to notify of the error. Due to the nature of the typo and its double occurrence, I could not resist a little mickey-taking.