Cemetery names and the source linker
When a source from a collection of burial records (e.g. FindAGrave, BillionGraves and other death registries) is being attached to a profile, the source linker ignores the cemetery name which is usually stored in a different index field from the event place.
There are many specific cemetery places in the Places database. There are good reasons for this (even if some of the parent places are a little quirky), but my casual observations suggest that there are very large numbers of existing such source attachments where the cemetery name has not been used to select the event place.
I have submitted a "Suggest an Idea" item to have the linker combine the cemetery name and the event place, and use that to populate the list of potential standardized places. As has been suggested previously, I am posting this here for your information.
Answers
-
Previous comments, along similar lines, have led to a response that FamilySearch cannot do anything about such issues, as they have come across from another record holder (e.g. Find A Grave).
My observation (specifically in adding Find a Grave records as sources) is that I always have to add an event date (by editing once the source is attached) and that the burial place has to be amended - either in the source linking process or from the Details page - to reflect the cemetery name as it was at the time, not its current address.
I wish you well with your suggestion (via Suggest An Idea), but personally have long accepted that records from outside sources will always need to be amended, where they do not conform to FamilySearch's standardisation protocols.
Here's an example of a record I added as a source earlier, whereby it is difficult to work out where the exact location of the cemetery was in 1960, let alone now (since mid-1960s boundary changes were made in England). I assume this relates to the main crematorium in Durham City, so this is not a great example - regardless, I have come to expect the Event Place will always be in need of standardisation, and there would still be a problem even if the "Cemetery (name)" field were to be used, as you suggest.
2 -
Agree that Source Linker could do a better job of standardizing cemetery names.
Good luck in your "suggest an idea". I made the same suggestion years ago, to no avail.
Glad I am not alone in my thinking. Thanks for your comment.
1 -
The real problem? Same problem with Billiongraves, too
And often the cemetery names get changed over the years.
Then the programmers have a problem with not only Findagrave and billiongraves, there are other issues - coding to catch all.
And wrong or missing cemeteries in FamilySearch.org PLACES. I've reported every missing cemetery I find to be added to the Places listings. And reported wrong names or even (gasp!) spellings.
Workaround solution? copy the name of cemetery listed in source and paste in the profile's burial info.
Dates of burial? Most of cemeteries do not have them. Find them in newspapers or church burial records.
2