Can automatic location matching be more location-aware?
Hi. I just came across a situation where the source linker matched a location on a record to the wrong global instance of the locality. It's not the first time. In fact, since a great many jurisdictions don't bother to qualify where a municipality is unless it's "somewhere else" (as in this case), it's a big, big problem.
This problem has become even more time consuming to deal with because the Web UI no longer provides an opportunity to review and correct these mistakes. I need to go back later to the profile to do that. When it's been repeated over many records in a census, it's a big task.
Below is a screen shot. As you can see the death took place in Pembroke and, since it's an Ontario, Canada record, it's clear this is Pembroke, Ontario, a small city of about 14,000 people. Even though this Pembroke and several dozen others pop up in the locations database, it instead matched it to a somewhat different name, Pembrokeshire. Why would it do that? Is that locality more "popular", perhaps? Clearly there's something more than simple name matching going on here.
Please, if there's no state/province/country to go by, assume localities are in the same jurisdiction, rather than doing a global search. It's the sensible thing to do.