Is this a new problem with a false "Missing Standardized Marriage Place" message appearing?

LegacyUser

Paul said: I came across these two records today - both displaying as "Missing Standardized Marriage Place", but both of which I have definitely inputted correctly (i.e not overlooked selecting standard from the drop-down menu).

It could be some time (well, no more than about 18 months, I guess) since I visited these pages, so the messages could have been there a while. I know this problem has been reported in another thread (possibly instigated by me) but cannot trace it. I believe a change in coding has inadvertently caused these messages to appear where there is no error (either with inputting or the name itself) and hope it does relate to an earlier reported "bug" and the problem has not recently cropped-up again.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Just checked again and it seems I have visited these pages as recently as May this year, so I would have seen any warning flags at that time (had they been present). It appears some action has taken place between May and now (mid-August) to produce this problem.

The original marriage data inputs were made (by me) in 2013.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: When you look was the standard really there? That is,.y it was a false message? When ever I've run across this, the message has been true in that the standard was not there. This has been on marriages where I know absolutely positive with no doubts whatsoever, such as on my own marriage, that the standard used to be there. So the message was true because some process somewhere had removed the standard. Haven't seen anywhere that anyone has fessed up to what happened or if it is connected with the reasons for creating the "Improve Place Names" routine.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I'm thinking it might be along the lines of your last suggestion, Gordon - although something similar did happen some months ago. I suppose there is little chance of getting an admission that some tinkering with programming relating to this feature is the cause. Also, it's a problem if nobody else is experiencing this. But, for sure, I would have noticed those warning flags in May (when unrelated changes were made to these IDs), even if I had not standardised properly when making the original inputs.

I have only really raised the topic to see if this has been the unexpected experience of other users, too.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Paul, I've seen this as well. In your case there are 2 standards with the exact same spelling as the display name, but NEITHER of them are currently attached:



I have seen a dozen or more of these in my lines. a large chunk of my ancestry have events in Chillicothe, Ross, Ohio, United States (which is how thay were all originally recorded). That name is also a Standard place name. In the last few months FS did a big cleanup on the FSFT for Standard locations and fixed a bunch of stuff where improper standards existed. I am convinced that during this effort, many CORRECT standards that were CORRECTLY assigned were improperly detached!

All you can do is go back and reattach the standard places now when you find them missing.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Yes, I'm sure I need to do just that. I was hoping the nature of the problem could be specifically identified but, as we know, while the engineers are enhancing one feature another is sometimes adversely affected, or even broken. In this case, they would probably be blissfully unaware their work might have had a negative affect and caused these place names to suddenly appear as needing to be standardized.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Actually in this case, the data that they were fixing up, was the data that got broken