Place names, None of the above 2
This instruction also is misleading: "If the correct place is not listed, consider adding it to our database of places."
Actually it is more like "If there is no suitable standard name, consider requesting it be added to our database of place names (gazetteer)." Family Tree contributors are not able to add place names to the Places gazetteer. When I first tried to follow this instruction it was a very frustrating experience.
Comments
-
0
-
I like your suggested correction.
Another option would be "If you feel the place name you entered should be included in the Places database so it can be used as a Standardized Event Place, click here." Then have the entire phrase be a link that jumps to: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?pagenum=1&pagesize=20&feedbackCreate=true (the Places database with the "Suggest A New Place" link already clicked, if that works.
Not all place names should be included in the database.
(I checked and the link does take you to the first part of entering a name, but you are not required to sign in first. That might mess up the process at some point.)
1 -
A few more thoughts about this suggestion, is that if the process of suggesting a new name is very frustrating the first time you tried it, @dontiknowyou , you might want to develop a post explaining why it was frustrating and what needs to be improved with that process.
@Julia Szent-Györgyi wrote in your other post, "Perhaps what is needed is an offer of a link to somewhat longer, illustrated instructions: "Click Here for an explanation of standardizing placenames" (or something like that). Then the instructions could have examples: "If none of the options look correct, you may need to associate the location with a higher jurisdiction. For example, if 'Marshallton, West Bradford, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States' is not on the list, you can use 'West Bradford, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States' instead." Then add something about suggesting additions to the database, but with some sort of explanation that you don't need to add every family graveyard and named meadow."
So I decided to check out the links in the current info/help flag and found that they do jump to fuller explanations:
- "If the correct place is not listed, consider adding it to our database of places." is a link to the help center article titled "How do I enter dates and places into Family Tree?"
- "Learn more about standardized place-names." is a link to the help center article titled "How do I suggest a new place to FamilySearch Places?"
This is backwards. The links should be the other way around. The other problem is that although the "How do I enter dates and places into Family Tree?" has been recently revised and is much better than it used to be, it still is not as clear as it could be about how to enter place names and link them to an appropriate standard. (In the info/help blue button at the place name, that is the one just above the one we are discussing, the links are in the correct order.)
I'll admit that I have never used the link on the Places database to request the addition of a place name, I've always used other routes. So I'm going to work through adding one, posting the process here with multiple images (I wish we could add more than one per post) for the general edification of anyone that might read through this discussion.
I'm going to start with the assumption that the pop-up flag is fixed to read "If there is no suitable standard name, consider requesting it be added to the Places database" and the link is fixed so that it goes directly to the Places database "create a place" screen rather than to the wrong help center article and that these are eventually included on the new pages. I did find that if you are already signed into Family Tree and use the link I posted above: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?pagenum=1&pagesize=20&feedbackCreate=true you are also signed into the Places database when you get there.
I'll post back here when the place is added.
1 -
The current process of requesting a new addition to the Places database turned out to be quite straightforward. I used the link I posted and it took me right here:
The directions seem quite clear.
1 -
Choosing Farm activated the Next button which I clicked to come here where I filled out the form:
then clicked Next again.
0 -
Which brought me to this screen
Where I just clicked Create Place.
0 -
To come to the screen where they wanted location and a source, which I added:
Rather than searching for it on their map, I just used the latitude and longitude I could get off the reference map I use and used that map as the source.
0 -
I'm going to work through adding one, posting the process here with multiple images (I wish we could add more than one per post) ...
You can several ways - granted there are some times when the vanilla platform seems to not accept any post with picture(s):
- if you don't add all pictures on the first post - I have had success adding pictures subsequently by deleting out the ones that won't post and replacing them.
- you can always attach a link to a shared document
or 3. You can use the attach paperclip to attach a document (don't have supported extensions handy).
0 -
Clicking Submit, I got this notice:
As I understand this process, this creates a provisional place in the database and puts it in a queue somewhere to get sent out to an expert for the area to evaluate, add more information such as alternate names and historical time periods, and add more citations before marking it as accepted which makes it available for use in Family Tree. I doubt this is ever accomplished in 24 hours. I think that notice on one of the above screens is a bit optimistic.
This whole process took less than five minutes. What needs to be improved?
0 -
This whole process took less than five minutes. What needs to be improved?
Nothing ... except more people using it? ... And perhaps allowing more/diverse locations than the Select a Category below? For example, in Ireland townland is pretty much the smallest identifying historical area but the current application does not allow that specific designation (should I be selecting town/hamlet/village/neigborhood instead?). Maybe selecting the Country one wants to add a place suggestion to could bring up a custom category list (that's one of the things I meant by user location settings on the other Idea. Maybe the locals speak Irish Gaelic/Gaeilge and want to add places in that language - which yes probably would be tied to the FamilySearch language setting - or minimally the OS language/keyboard settings. Or as I am sure someone might bring up - why not allow someone with the knowledge to include multiple language place name suggestions in the same submission?). Some of these improvements to places can already be suggested on the provisional place you have created see image below for Lægreid - and the process is equally simple - submitting more improvements to a place may make it more prepared to be accepted by FamilySearch. Eventually - the more standardized places accepted in the database the more the place you input for an event will correspond to the Standardized place - thus decreasing the difference between the two fields (at least on the map).
"...Then add something about suggesting additions to the database, but with some sort of explanation that you don't need to add every family graveyard and named meadow."
I don't think there is a limit on how many places people can suggest to add - as log as it fits in one of the predetermined categories. I think the database can support however many are accepted. A family graveyard? great addition. A named meadow? Well, the application is limiting suggestions...
Here is the current Help Center document on submitting new places:
0 -
So here, in less than 24 hours, is the new addition to the Places database as shown in a similar image as genthusiast's without the improvement pop up:
So now, as I understand things, it is in the database but not available for use in Family Tree because it is just provisional. Now it has to get passed on to someone that can add all the missing stuff that genthusiast talks about as well as the four time periods it should have and who will also confirm its existence, coordinates, and need to be in the database then either change it to Accepted or delete it. I'll keep checking back and we can see how long that takes. I'm sure it will partially depend on who they have currently that has the background to work on Norwegian place names.
0 -
@Gordon Collett in my experience (not very many times) - they get back to you in a day or two... so maybe not 24 hours but not too far off... If memory serves you don't have to wait to Improve this place - you can submit those improvements to the provisional entry.
0 -
But the test here is to see what the result is when no other information is suggested. What resources does FamilySearch have for these place names? I'm sure it is dependent on what personnel or volunteer gets the assignment, whether, to take the two possible extreems, it is someone living in Eidfjord who knows its entire history or someone who has never heard of Norway before. In other words, how critical is that Improve This Place Link and how dependent is FamilySearch on us to provide needed information rather than just complaining about its lack?
0 -
When I suggest a new standard place name I usually hear back in a few weeks but in some cases it has been months. However, many of my suggestions involve deconflating else merging duplicates (just like most of my labor on Family Tree!) so they are not simple additions.
I do try to do some of the necessary research for the gazetteer team, to give them a running start and also to increase the likelihood that they see and understand the problem I found.
As all the comments here reflect, improving standard place names is an involved process. I would really, really like the default instruction given to newbies to be something like:
If you have doubts about what standard place name to select then select None of the above. You will see a red warning icon with the text Non-standardized Place. This is normal and not a cause for alarm.
Perhaps it would be helpful to add another selection: Place name improvement needed.
1 -
I don't see the info text button that takes you to the FS Place database in the new layout. In the old layout, it's a two-step process where you have to click the link to go to the place Help page, then click the link from there to go to the Places database.
I'd like to see a one-click option, where if a location entered wasn't resolving adequately, the user could click a link to open a page where they could perform a more thorough place search and add new places, with what was entered already copied to the field. There needs to be a broader, more thorough search that returns more results in a larger screen. The reason being that the standardized place search algorithm is ridiculously strict, and lot of sufficiently descriptive place names aren't finding their correct standardized forms. I've found this especially with churches and parishes in England. For example, "Cathedral, Manchester" doesn't find its standardized equivalent: "Manchester Cathedral, Lancashire, England". "Manchester Cathedral" will, but "Manchester, Cathedral, Manchester, Lancashire" won't, and "Manchester Cathedral Lancashire" won't either. Similarly, leaving off "church", as most records do, or omitting an apostrophe-S, or adding one when it isn't in the standardized name, putting the city before the church name, etc. -- all these can result in the place not being found even when the terms should be sufficient to locate it. And if the search was expanded, or if location contents generate a lot of standardized place matches, you don't want to be confined to that tiny scroll window.
Plus the expanded search would give a better idea whether a location really did need to be added, and being able to initiate that process from the same window after performing a search would encourage more people to do that.
1 -
I think it would be great if the Places database was easily accessible, promoted more, and had better instructions on all its features. I haven't found a good article on how to use it.
The best search for places is the area search. If you know approximately where the place you want is located, you can just go to the Places database, pan and zoom the map until you are at the right place, then click to set a location dot, then click on the dot, pick a radius, and you will get a list of everywhere inside that circle.
To take the example of Manchester Cathedral, I can get close to it, click, click on the dot I placed, type in 2 km, and get a list of the 214 standardized places inside that circle with a radius 2 km:
Then just scroll through the list to find out whether the place you want is entered in the database, if and so, how.
1 -
I appreciate the Upvotes. Hopefully additional readers will decide this suggestion merits an Upvote.
0 -
My test place of Lægreid has been updated and approved and is now available in FamilyTree. This took just a week short of two months but during a time period that covered, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years. Not too bad of response time.
0
