Place will not standardize.
Clinton E Mosher • L52G-R7W
Error for standardization of marriage place; place IS standardized but system will not accept it; does not give any other place options.
Pleas see attachment
The problem has been escalated to the engineers - so check back later. We shall see how quick they can be getting that back as it should.1
I also brought the problem up in tonight's Tech Talk.
Between comments here disappearing and being unable to work in the tree, it's pretty much a lost cause today.0
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm running across multiple things that are not loading right. Somewhere some servers must be crashing badly.
The specific problem mentioned here seems at least partially fixed because it is now possible to standardize the place name. If it used to be standardized and has lost that, I hope whatever is going on is limited in scope, temporary, and repairable. It would not be fun if a bunch of place names have to be restandardized.0
I just tried some place names that would not standardize a couple of hours ago. They now work fine. Cheers to the engineers.0
This problem seems to continue. For example, for the year 1880, the standard for Salt Lake City should be Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah Territory, United States. At the present time, no standard appears for Utah Territory, Just Utah, which is wrong. This used to work. What has happened?0
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Short Answer: Things have changed ...
ie. To make it EASIER for Users/Patrons ...
So, "Correctness", NO LONGER applies ...
And, certainly NOT, to improved accuracy ...
Here is a "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch;
Why does FamilySearch combine U.S. States and their historic territories in FamilySearch Places?
Where, it states, among other things:
In the past, FamilySearch Places contained separate entries for both U.S. states and the historic U.S. territories that shared their same names. For example, "Utah (state; 1896-today)" was one entry, and "Utah Territory (1850-1896)" was another. The distinction was accurate, but some users struggled to understand which place to select when documenting an ancestor's life.
That Said ...
Like it or not ...
'FamilySearch', is making the "Change", for "Ease of Use", rather than, CORRECTNESS; and, ACCURACY ...
That is a real shame ...
Just my thoughts ...
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
ps: Truly ... a real shame ...
pps: Excuse the Pun ... another nail in the coffin ...
Does this apply to years before 1776? That would really be horrendous! This website is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Not only does it throw out years of building a standardized places index, but its permission for the incessant use of GEDCOM accounts and indexing that never attaches the original document is making for one big mess. The concept of Primary Source Documents has been forsaken. This isn't a site that fosters genealogical research, but rather just a site to permit obtaining ordinance cards. How many Mrs. John Does have you come across? For me, a lot lately. And users more than ever are wearing their religion on their sleeves.
I am using Legacy 9 to capture my family tree. It interfaces with FamilySearch where I have done all the research. It's getting harder and harder to do. I think that I'm going to finish working on all of my third great-grandparents, move them into Legacy 9, and then just forget about this game. I'm too old to do the leg work that FamilySearch wants us to do - go to their library, find your document, index it, attach it - all done without rules or supervision. The problem is there really isn't any other site. Ancestry, My Heritage, Find My Past, WikiTree, FindaGrave, etc. are terrible.0
Scott, in reply to your concern: Does this apply to years before 1776? "
The simple answer is no.
For a more complete answer please read the above referenced knowledge article that Brett provided.