Another place name issue - where does "Guatemala" extracted from?
I stumbled across this today. The record is at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV3Q-3GCY?treeref=G8DD-R4F and shows no indication of any Guatemala connection. James was just one of a group of (mainly) labourers from Great Britain found in this New York Passenger Lists record.
Just how do these baffling place names appear in a Search (see https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?treeref=G8DD-R4F&q.givenName=James&q.surname=Carrigan&q.birthLikePlace=Sunderland%2C%20Durham%2C%20England%2C%20United%20Kingdom&q.birthLikeDate.from=1847&q.birthLikeDate.to=1851 - screenshot extract below), but not on any other page / record?
My general experience of this type of problem has only previously been in connection to a census area place name being recorded as an incorrect location.
The place of birth/nationality is abbreviated as Gt Britain. Our friend, the placename standardization algorithm, has apparently decided that "Gt" means "Guatemala."0
@Paul W , @Áine Ní Donnghaile - thank you for finding this error. This one appears to have contaminated over 157,000 records in the New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1891 Collection. It is interesting that the errors occur in the Search results, but not in the index record details page, to which Paul has alluded.
I will move this issue into the queue for engineering to review and fix. As usual, we have no way to suggest when this particular item will be resolved.
Again, thank you for your kind diligence in highlighting these problems.1
Its because Guatamala happens to be the first name on the list that pops up, so therefore it "must be correct". Same as S A as in South Africa gets dumped to Saudi Arabia, or S R for Southern Rhodesia gets dumped to Suriname...1
@N Tychonievich or any mod - can you please escalate this to the Engineers? Please and thank you.0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Of course, how stupid of me to raise the query!
Seriously, Aine, thanks for the prompt response - I'm sure you're correct, but examples like this continue to illustrate the whole silliness of placename standardization algorithm.2
Agree, @Paul W. Surely we, as a group, have spent more time finding and reporting than was saved by using the algorithm.
For the sake of my sanity, I just report and try to move on.2