Resolving "Non-Standardised" Information Problems

LegacyUser

Alfred Neumann said: My concern - and, therefore, suggestion - has to do with ordinances not being performed on behalf of deceased ancestors simply because the submitting patron has forgotten to click the "standardised" boxes, for whatever reason.

The submitted information may well be totally accurate (i.e. a birth date of "21 May 1823", and a birth place of "Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England, United Kingdom" cannot be any more precise) but, unless the patron confirms this information in the drop-down boxes as "standardised", it will be recorded as "non-standardised" - and this prevents that person from receiving essential eternal ordinances.

Why not include a simple piece of programming code to prohibit patrons from moving on if they have failed to confirm "standardised" information, for whatever reason? Many websites won't allow you to continue if, for example, you have failed to include an e-mail address. The web site then highlights the box with the missing information and asks you to re-enter the required information.

If FamilySearch introduced such a fail-safe facility, it would ensure that patrons didn't assume the information they've submitted is "standardised" and acceptable. At the moment, some patrons are submitting "non-standardised" information without knowing it, and leaving their deceased ancestors in "limbo" as it were. Although they may have provided a perfectly full birth date and birth place, simply because they didn't click the drop-down box, the information is then regarded as "non-standardised" and the ordinances are then unable to be performed.

I’ve also discovered some of my ancestors, whose original information was submitted by others, have had SOME of their ordinances performed with that original information, but who are now denied the remaining ordinances because the original information is now regarded as “non-standardised”! Does this mean the original ordinances are invalid? If not, why can’t the remaining ordinances be performed with the original information?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: There are a number of places where FamilySearch could and should add checkpoints, this being one of them.

However. . .

I try to standardize dates and places whenever I come across them. Most were entered before FamilySearch had the standard check... going back to the 2012 time frame when the nFS database was imported into the present database.

I have run into very few, if any, situations where a recent entry didn’t have a standardized entry.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I just did some checking.

One of the nonstandard entries was made by me, back in 2014 and the entry matched the standard. A while back FamilySearch ran a routine to set the standard values as long as there was no ambiguity about the entered or standard place. In the case of my entry, that happened to be the case.

In another case, the entry was made in 2019, but from a GEDCOM ingest, and while not producing a duplicate entry, the person did update the values, creating a nonstandard entry. But because the GEDCOM ingest system is not very good, there was no option to set a standard. Many of us have asked that GEDCOM uploads not be used to feed FamilySearch FamilyTree, but to no avail.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: As an added note, whenever a user is setting up a relative’s record for temple Ordinances, they should go through the record and make sure that all issues are resolved.

I periodically review my relatives’ records, just to make sure any new hints have been processed and any possible duplicates have been resolved.

LegacyUser

Juli said: ::plaintively:: Is there any feature of GetSat that could be implemented to mark LDS-only threads in some way, so that if the title doesn't make it clear (as here), I still know not to go there?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Although in fairness, when and where a check for standardised stuff is implemented might have a bearing on what we see and do...

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I think that it is important to realize that there are times when entering a location that the selection from the places list being assigned to the display name needs to be "None of the above". For example, a record for a burial location may list a town and state. I've run into situations where 5 counties in the state of Ohio all had towns with the exact same name. Since the sources don't define which town it is, you have to leave the name in the form of "town, Ohio, United States", and mark the standard place assigned to the display name as "None of the above".

This of course creates the data error symbol which you actually WANT to be present until you can determine which is the correct county being referred to. Very useful.

Now for a Bug in the system...

If after entering a place name, you go to the standard place list, you will find the "None of the above" selection at the bottom of the list...

HOWEVER...

If you are initially in the process of entering a new name, the pull down list that is displayed IS MISSING THE "NONE OF THE ABOVE" SELECTION.

I don't know when this disappeared but I just now noticed it when trying to enter a non-standardized name.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: The programming code is there. After saving the information, that big red exclamation point appears and the Research Helps section gets a large red icon that is labeled "missing standardized ..." and the ordinance page clearly states "needs a standardized ...."

Three places of being informed something is wrong really should be sufficient. Then there is the hard stop in place that one cannot submit someone for ordinances until this is corrected.

All of this really should be sufficient.

There should not be such a hard stop that you can do absolutely nothing else until you set a standard because there may be situations where one really cannot set a standard before completing more research.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Gorden,

My issue with the "None of the above" selection having been removed from that list is that when you first enter an ambiguous name (e.g., it could be in any number of different counties), the name at the top of the list is automatically assigned by the system as the standardized place name associated/assigned to that display name.

That makes it impossible when initially entering a display name that is ambiguous to mark it as not having a standard place assigned to it. You have to enter your name and then later go BACK and change the system's incorrectly assigned name (from the top of the guess list) to "None of the above".

Why is it in one list and NOT the other?

By the way, I have a single source for a vital of someone I'm working on that is documented in the source as "Springfield, Ohio". Did you know that there are 19 Springfields in Ohio in the current "guess list" that comes up? And I know for a fact that the one at the top of the list (i.e., the one the system automatically assigns) is NOT the correct one!

I just don't know which is the correct one yet (and I'm not going to assign a bogus one simply to get the name into the temple queue).

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: As is often the case, there is a hidden work around. When you enter that name and do not want to standardize it yet and "none of the above" is missing from the the list, just click outside of the drop down menu somewhere, not on the top grey line, not on any of the standards. Just anywhere else on the page and you will get "No standard selected."

Just wanted to point this out. I agree it should be back on the list.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yep. Unfortunately, just hitting the Enter key after putting in the place name automatically selects the guess at the top of the list.

It WAS working correctly before, it needs to be put back.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Yep, does need to be fixed. Fortunately, there are so many ways to accomplish the same ask in so many areas family search from stray code lying around, there is usually a work around. If you can just find it.