How do I report a place name issue?
A week or so ago, there appears to have been a change to how "Missouri" is recognized as a standardized place:
"Missouri, United States" is now the third option in the dropdown menu, which is problematic because many users are not not conscientious about selecting the most applicable option. I've been encountering more and more records that incorrectly list one of the higher options or even "Missouri City, Fort Bend, Texas, United States". Additionally, any place fields that contain simply "Missouri" and not "Missouri, United States" have been retroactively standardized as "Louisiana Territory, United States". While the land that comprises the state of Missouri was part of Louisiana Territory from 1803-1812, this should probably not be the default option.
Answers
-
Perhaps you might get a better response if you raise this at https://community.familysearch.org/en/group/68-familysearch-places.
However, please be aware that FamilySearch seems to have recently adopted a different line of thinking over the standardization of placenames. Up till a short time ago, the "policy" was to assign the most appropriate format for a placename according to the time period involved. It now appears this is no longer considered an important factor - especially as this seems to have been "confusing" inexperienced FamilySearch users. The suffix "Territory" has been withdrawn from being included in the "standards list" in place of the (historically inaccurate, in many cases) "United States".
Where this action is going to lead is anybody's guess, but it could well lead to a general reduction in the addition of requested additions (from users), especially if there is already an existing, alternative standard with the same coordinates.
I appreciate you are raising a slightly different issue, so would encourage you to place your post in the "Places" group, for which I have provided the link.
0 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
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:
Quote
------------------
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.
------------------
So ...
That Said ...
Like it or not ...
Unfortunately ...
'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.
Brett
ps: Truly ... a real shame ...
pps: Excuse the Pun ... another nail in the coffin ...
Plus ...
There have been similar related ( Recent ) 'Posts'/'Comments', on this matter ...
.
1
