Re-emergence of issue of placenames being carried across as non-standardized
Over the last couple of days I have been adding new profiles to the tree by way of the source linker. During the process, the placename looks perfectly fine, but once on the newly created profile page the placename is flagged as needing standardization.
This issue has happened previously, but appeared to have disappeared for well over a year. Would be grateful to hear if any other users are experiencing the problem, as well as for a moderator escalating to the engineers for a fix.
Meanwhile, I'll try to replicate so I can provide a specific example, but can confirm it involving adding children to a family from census sources and the placename in question was "Blackburn, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom". Somehow, the system is currently failing to recognise this as a perfectly correct format for the place in question.
Answers
-
Happy Saturday, Paul. The Source Linker offers a standardized place, but you need to click on it to accept or, if necessary, change it.
0 -
Hi Áine
I have been adding further individuals via census sources today, albeit for locations other than Blackburn, Lancashire (made famous by a certain Beatles' song!) and have not had the problem arise. As I say, I do this kind of work regularly and, unless prompted to do so, would never think to click on the placename to ensure it has been standardized. Only since I've been adding these perfectly acceptable looking birthplace locations (for Blackburn, during the process) have I noticed them being flagged once I go to the newly created profiles. Sorry to disagree, but I'm convinced I'm not doing anything any differently to usual, so will have to experiment more to see if I can replicate. Just the problem, at present, of finding any more new individuals to add from census sources, who were born in Blackburn!
0 -
Well, perhaps your mileage is different from mine, but I attach many records this way nearly every day. Clicking on the suggestion is the only way to ensure it is used. I'll take screenshots on my next.
0 -
In case I am not making the precise issue clear, the problem only appears to be occurring after adding a source to an individual whilst creating / adding them to an existing parent. The second set of screenshots do confirm this only appears to be happening when the place name is "Blackburn, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom", as I have not clicked on the place name in any of these examples, or indeed in the many cases of individuals I have created by this means over the last couple of days. I'm not saying this is a unique problem involving a Blackburn birthplace, but it is only example where I am experiencing this behaviour.
I have carried out exactly the same steps in the example below, but am not getting the Non-standardized warning when the placename is "Lancashire, England, United Kingdom" or any other placename that has been carried across in my work, both today and over the past year or so - prior to which this problem did arise frequently with a variety of placenames. Again, to make it clear, I never click on the Birth Place box, unless it is obvious the place is not in the database (like the "Bl burn…" one I had earlier this afternoon, which I obviously did standardize before clicking on "Create New Person".
0 -
I second the suggestion Áine has made, as a "best practice" to ensure uniformity of place names and of dates. I'm in a position where I'm frequently called on to teach new FamilySearch users. When it comes to entering place names and dates I explain that after entering the place name or the date, the extra mouse click of the suggested format is to "confirm" the choice.
0 -
I'm certainly not arguing with Áine's advice, just reporting what I genuinely believed might be a recurrence of a previous bug, which - at the time - many other users reported. Now that I find the problem appears to be very limited, I feel a bit bad about having made such a fuss.
With or without using what I agree is probably "best practice" when undertaking this task, I will probably not encounter the issue again - well, not until I come across any other individuals I wish to "create" who were born in Blackburn!
Nevertheless, I'd be interested to hear if any other users can replicate the issue with other placenames (in the "Birth Place" field) and by not clicking in the box, if the placename appears (on the surface) to look perfectly okay.
1 -
I have had a related problem. (At least I think it's related—depending on what the algorithm is for standardization in Source Linker.)
The place name looks okay on the source, but then what shows up on the Person Page is different. Sometimes totally different. I know it happens when moving Residence data over. I also had it happen yesterday when I edited birth data for an existing person. I will pay attention to whether it happens when creating a new person. When I see it again, I'll post details here.
0 -
@Paul W When you come across issues with the Source Linker it's best to post them in the Source Linker Feedback Group. The group is being monitored by engineers and others who can help with the issue.
0 -
Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, I'll do that. Maybe I should have in the first place, but I think I considered it more as an issue connected to standardization of place names (well, definitely this Blackburn, Lancashire one - I haven't had a problem with any of the other placenames that have been carried across to the Details pages in recent days), rather than it specifically related to the source linker procedure itself.
0
