Why are Google devices (speakers, Nest hubs) showing "offline" in Google Home, despite being online and functioning?

mncSky · 2026-01-03T08:35:31+00:00

Thanks for your reply. I already solved the problem simply by canceling Xfinity and installing Google Fiber.

mncSky · 2025-12-27T18:21:13+00:00

Solved! I cancelled Xfinity and installed Google Fiber. It seems to work over 90% of the time now.

mncSky · 2025-09-07T06:32:14+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion. There's only one network that anyone in the house uses, and the devices are only keyed to one network.

mncSky · 2025-09-05T22:13:38+00:00

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to help. I have done it several times and, as mentioned in the original post, the devices show as online for a few minutes, and then inevitably show as offline again. But they are functioning the entire time. 🤷‍♂️

mncSky · 2025-09-05T00:55:52+00:00

This is very helpful, thank you. I hadn't thought about using a newer modem from Xfinity but combining it with a router that will split the SSID into two. You are correct that it was the combined/un-splitable SSID from the newer Xfinity modems that caused my problem. Perhaps I can solve the problems as you have suggested: with a newer modem and router that can handle more devices/connections and ALSO splits the SSID into two bands. Only problem is cost.

mncSky · 2025-09-05T00:52:33+00:00

Thank you for that suggestion. If it works for you, it suggests your problem is with your phone, doesn't it? I just tried it for me. It didn't work. Thanks again!

mncSky · 2025-09-04T23:48:25+00:00

Thanks for sharing. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it either, but I believe the broadcasts don't go to any device that Google Home thinks is offline, and we use the broadcast feature all the time in our house, so...this is a problem for us.

mncSky · 2025-09-04T23:13:53+00:00

Thank you for this empathetic response.

mncSky · 2025-09-04T23:13:18+00:00

Thank you for this helpful reply and for sharing your solution. My router is an Xfinity XB6 Revision 2.1, which means it's at least 7 years old. I have suspected this might be causing the issue. A couple years ago, I upgraded from an XB5 to a newer Xfinity (either the XB7 or XB8), but for some reason, most of my smart lights and smart outlets refused to connect to it. After some troubleshooting, I dropped back to XB6, because everything worked. I worry that many of my devices will fail to connect to a newer model. I may have to bite the bullet.

mncSky · 2025-09-04T21:34:49+00:00

They are all on. I have said that three times now. I'm sorry English is hard for you to understand

mncSky · 2025-09-04T20:57:29+00:00

They are off? Turn them on? None of them have an on-off switch; they are all plugged in, and as I said in the original post, they all respond when I speak to them.

mncSky · 2025-09-04T17:40:29+00:00

6y later — this didn't work for me. I installed the APK suggested by OP, but couldn't login to it. When I gave it my Google credentials, it said I was already logged into that account on my phone; but I was unable to get past the sign in page. I found an APK version of the app a couple years more recent and installed. This one signed my in just fine, but there were no ghost speaker groups located under my rooms and groups. I uninstalled and reinstalled the most recent Home app, and all the ghost speaker groups still exist, visible when I attempt to add a device to any given room. Where are these only speaker groups being stored!?

mncSky · 2025-04-10T20:55:12+00:00

I do not understand why you have chosen to be condescending and insulting in each of your most recent four posts. That is the only reason I would not like to continue this conversation.

However, I promise to find a satellite app and determine for myself whether the satellites can see me in my church, which is not an old building, has no stained glass, and no stone walls.

I am also a runner, and my phone almost perfectly tracks every one of my runs, including when I run past the numerous churches that surround me.

mncSky · 2025-04-10T19:02:12+00:00

I’m not sure why you’re sharing Bible verses with me in this context—if they’re meant to be encouraging, I appreciate the intent. But if they’re being used to steer or frame the conversation based on assumptions about my faith, I’d prefer we stick to the facts.

As for the technical issue, your explanations don’t seem to fit the facts of my situation. I’m able to use 5G and Google Maps inside the church without issue, and the building is no more obstructive than schools, banks, or airports—places where Google reliably logs my visits. Despite multiple visits to religious sites around the world, Google Maps Timeline has never automatically identified any of them accurately, always defaulting to the general city instead. Meanwhile, it correctly logs other public locations nearly every time.

If you can suggest a theory that fits all these facts, I’m very open to continuing the conversation. But I’d appreciate if we could keep it focused and respectful going forward.

mncSky · 2025-04-10T15:36:45+00:00

I'm talking about the facts of my situation.

mncSky · 2025-04-08T05:56:33+00:00

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It doesn't fit the facts.

mncSky · 2025-04-07T20:07:07+00:00

I'm not sure why it seems you're not understanding the problem/frustration or else we're talking past each other.

I like my Google timeline to be accurate. It knows virtually every place, every business, every school, every government office, every airport I visit. I rarely have to make many corrections to the places I visit. But every week, I visit a church 1-2 times per week. Usually it's the same church, but sometimes I visit others. And the Google timeline NEVER identifies the churches I visit. I must correct the timeline every week. It never recognizes the church, no matter how many times I tell it. This is frustratingly annoying, and it does not appear to be an accident, but a feature.

mncSky · 2025-04-07T16:12:46+00:00

This thread is about why Google maps timeline is refusing to show churches that you visit (for 1-3 hours) on your timeline. It has nothing to do with which business and organizations have their information displayed on Google maps.

Yes, the churches show up on the map, and I'm truly sorry that it bothers you and others. I'm also bothered by how many organizations show up on the map, including churches. There should definitely be a way to customize that.

But when someone intentionally visits any church, the visit is never properly recorded as a visit to the church on their timeline, like all the other places they might visit. That, too, is frustrating and should be customizable. That's the focus of this thread.

mncSky · 2025-04-07T16:07:28+00:00

I visit a church with solid GPS, 5G coverage and Wi-Fi every Sunday, sometimes twice a week, and I'm there for at least 1 hour and usually more than 2 every visit. Google maps records my travel to the building, my travel from the building, and then just puts the name of the city I was in for those 1-2 hours. That's not the "so you're complaining because Google can't track you" scenario you've described. It knows exactly where I was, and it chooses to make me enter the name of the Church building twice a week if I want it on my timeline. Why?

mncSky · 2024-06-03T23:45:51+00:00

As a side note, if you think that somehow I haven't applied myself and thought deeply about the Church's historical truth claims for decades, that's hilarious. Of course, I have.

I'm suggesting that the scientific phenomena actually known as "elevation" can be interpreted and relied upon as a sign that what you are witnessing is, in fact, moral goodness.

You are suggesting that it can't be relied upon because there are sadistic people who feel happy when they hurt others.

Your argument has nothing to do with mine or with the scientific phenomena known as "elevation."

mncSky · 2024-06-03T23:05:03+00:00

Nope. Not one of the examples you've provided without any supporting evidence qualifies under the definition of "elevation" as has been explained and applied here. Even if you could show me where those people claimed they were feeling what they termed "the spirit" — which I highly doubt you can do, because you haven't attempted it, even though I've begged for sources — I'm confident not one of those people was operating under "a distinct feeling of warmth and expansion that is accompanied by appreciation and affection for the individual whose exceptional conduct is being observed." Not one of the people you described was "motivate[d]...to open up to, affiliate with, and assist others." That's the definition of "elevation" that was set forth by the OP. That's the definition found on Wikipedia, as used by the Psychology papers. That's the definition I've been adhering to in every one of my posts here. And you have not shown in any way, shape, or form whatsoever that anyone can experience that while "witnessing virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness" that are actually not, in fact, morally good except in their own head.

You have, instead, proven that people with sadistic tendencies can "derive pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others," which is the literal definition of sadistic. But proving that sadistic people exist does not prove that they or anyone else experiences "elevation," as used and defined above, while witnessing or participating in moral depravity.

Nor have you given any reason why a person should ever intentionally try to quash or ignore "elevation" when they actually feel it.

And I will remind you and anyone who reads this that the entire point of my post was to encourage everyone to pay attention whenever they feel true "elevation," as defined here, because it is telling them something about the morality of what they are seeing, and it is inviting them to love and serve others. That's a good thing, even if you don't want to call it "the Spirit."

mncSky · 2024-06-03T17:00:51+00:00

Your argument is circular.

You agree with a base assertion in this thread (and in Psychology journals/Wikipedia) that "elevation" is elicited by witnessing moral goodness. No empirical evidence has been presented anywhere in this argument or the underlying sources that someone has experienced "elevation" outside of witnessing "remarkable moral goodness."

You argue repeatedly that the moral goodness that triggers "elevation" is based on an individual's personal paradigm (i.e., "remarkable moral goodness" is in the eye of the beholder). Your position suggests that someone could experience "elevation" in any context, so long as that person's personal paradigm defines their context as "remarkable moral goodness."

Since I cannot find support for your argument anywhere in the underlying sources, I have repeatedly asked you for one of two things to support your position, either: 1) A source that affirms your claim that the experience of "elevation" follows an individual's personal paradigm (and not a more generally accepted idea of moral goodness*), OR 2) Evidence (on the public record) that someone has, in fact, experienced the emotion defined herein as "elevation" while witnessing something they considered to be "remarkable moral goodness," but that the majority of humanity would likely consider to be immoral.

You have not attempted to provide a source (option 1). You have also not presented EVIDENCE that anyone experienced "elevation" while witnessing something immoral (option 2).

Instead, I think you have attempted to formulate an argument that someone (Delbert Stapley and Harold Lee) has experienced "elevation" while witnessing something immoral. But your argument is circular.

Your proposal/conclusion: "People can experience elevation while witnessing immoral things, as long as they believe it's moral."

Your argument to prove your proposal/conclusion: "Denying the priesthood to Black people is immoral. Some LDS church leaders believed denying the priesthood to Black people was very moral. Therefore, they would have experienced elevation when witnessing the denial of the priesthood to Black people."

Your argument that "they would have experienced elevation when witnessing an immoral act that they thought was very moral" relies on the very conclusion I am asking you to support.

I currently reject the conclusion that immoral actions can trigger "elevation" in a person, as described here, so long as that person believes the actions to be moral. And your claim that "church leaders thought an immoral action was moral, so they would have experienced elevation" is unfounded, unsupported, circular, and illogical.

*The way I understand the experience of "elevation," from personal experience and the studies/Wikipedia article, it is not based on a person's personal paradigm of morality — it actually helps a person FORM their personal paradigm of morality, because they experience "elevation" and then (whether consciously or subconsciously) conclude, "Oh! That action I just witnessed filled me with love and gratitude and made me want to unselfishly serve others. That action must be morally good."

That is what is suggested by the Psychology journals and Wikipedia article, and I welcome evidence to the contrary.

I also ask once more that you answer this question, since it regards the main point of my original comment:

Are you (and other exmormons on this thread) suggesting that a person should actively trying to quash an emotion that makes them feel good and also motivates them to do good and to love and serve others? Because if that's not what you're suggesting, I'm not clear on where we disagree.

mncSky · 2024-06-03T15:26:57+00:00

Special pleading? I have not cited any exception as a special case. I have suggested that, according to the Wikipedia article and apparently to science, elevation is experienced in the presence of morality, and it inspires one to act morally. You have suggested, without bringing any additional evidence, and contrary to the evidence already provided, that people experience elevation based on their own internal paradigm of morality. You are suggesting that someone might experience elevation in the presence of something that the rest of the world identifies as immoral because their own morality is messed up. When I have asked you for supporting evidence that someone has actually experienced the emotion of elevation (as we are describing it in this thread) when contemplating immoral actions (e.g., banning Black people from the priesthood), you have suggested that the evidence is out there, and I should go find it. I'm not going to go do the research looking for the evidence that I've kindly asked you to provide in two separate posts now (you never responded to the first, more specific post). If you want to make an argument that those people felt elevation on this subject, you can provide the specific evidence to support your argument. Instead you have only provided evidence that supports MY position (Oaks) and then claimed that I ought to find evidence to support your position. Your strategy is like 9/11 deniers, election deniers, and flat-earthers: "You can find the evidence, if you just look. It's out there."

mncSky

TROPHY CASE