Should Family Tree users continue to be so precise in standardizing placenames?
In view of the current action by FamilySearch in combining U.S. territories with U.S states (see https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places) would a moderator please escalate this query in order that we can be provided with an "official" response?
Every day I carefully select the correct alternative when entering a placename from the drop down list, but I do not wish to continue to "waste" time in doing this if FamilySearch has now adopted a general policy of simplification, in place of historical accuracy and other factors.
For example, if I am standardizing the placename of Loddon - in Norfolk, England - I currently have eight alternatives, as partly illustrated in the screenshot - there are four more, if I scroll down further. Even at present, is it worth me worrying about which to choose if they are all assigned the same coordinates and are treated in the same way by FamilySearch search algorithms? More to the point, if most or all of these placenames are going to be combined at some point, is this all going to prove an ultimate waste of time?
I, and I'm sure many other users, would like to be advised on any new thinking by FamilySearch engineers / management on this issue. Specifically, is the "Territory / State" combination a "one off" exercise, or is the intention to broaden this for all areas? Up till now the advice has always been to choose the alternative appropriate to the time period and/or type of event.
Again, I would request that a moderator would kindly pass this query to the appropriate FamilySearch section for their response.
