FS Blog entry "Family Tree Update—Standardized Places"

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Two hours ago I received an e-mail from FamilySearch Blog because I subscribe to that. The post (URL https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/... it says in the mail) is not found on the Blog - not sure what that means.

It starts out "A systemwide update will take place ". Notice that word "will". This is excellent - many of us have been asking for advance notice of stuff for ages. Unfortunately, I have to be a bit churlish and say that the rest of the mail is worrying.

The full first sentence reads "A systemwide update will take place for a small percentage of places listed in the FamilySearch Family Tree that are not standardized properly. " OK so far for an introduction - this sort of update has been happening for some time, I think.

"In cases where a place listed in the Family Tree is not a location, FamilySearch will remove the attached standard, though the original text entry will remain. "
Point 1 - we appear to be using both "place" and "location". We should never mix terms and the terms must match what's in the User Interface.

Point 2 - this does not tell me what's going to happen. There are potentially two place-names for any event - the "Standardized Event Place" and what most of us on this site refer to as the Display name - though I'm not sure if that's a sanctioned name or not. When it says "a place listed in the Family Tree" - which place-name is it referring to? The "Display" or the Standardized? And what does "is not a location" mean?

Does this mean "In cases where a standardized place-name listed in the Family Tree is not in the current list of standardized place-names..."? That could happen. Someone might have correctly standardized a place-name years ago but it's no longer in the current list of standardized place-names.

Or does it mean "In cases where a display place-name listed in the Family Tree is not in the current list of standardized place-names..."? I really hope not because the whole point of "display" place-names is that you use them to create a display-place name that isn't in the current list of standardized place-names.

So guys, which is it? (And I'm sure that there are variations on those two meanings).

Like I say, having advance notice is excellent so it grieves me to raise a problem.

PS I have not given the full text of the post / mail here.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: "though the original text entry will remain. " - pretty sure that means the original text will remain. They will not change displayed inputted data, only the standardized data (for computers) it seems. I clicked on your link and it says that page is not available, btw.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Thank you Adrian for bringing this to our attention. I am going to write clarifying copy below and you tell me if a) it is better, b) if we need to correct the original on the blog or if having this here will be sufficient.
"In cases where a standardized place-name listed in the Family Tree is not an actual place-name (it contains indecipherable or nonsense words or characters), FamilySearch will remove the attached standard, though the original display entry text will remain."
Does this explain it better? We are not touching the display name, just those place-names in standardized-name fields that are not true standardized place-names.
Let me know your thoughts.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: I found the blog and read it in its entirety. What it is saying (at least what I got out of it) is that some standard place names have been deleted in the standard place name database after they were used and have been changed to something else or just deleted since it was wrong. Therefore, they cannot be used for hinting. The original display place name will not change as I said, but the red exclamation mark will appear for these situations since no standard place name is attached to the event anymore (since it is deleted by FamilySearch). Hope that makes sense.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: If you are allowing these terms.

"British North America"
"British Colonial America"

then you must allow these (knowing that those ones will never be accepted -smack of colonialism)

Spanish Colonial America (aka Peru, Colombia, Mexico, etc)
Portuguese Colonial America (aka Brazil)
French Colonial Africa
French Colonial America
French Colonial Asia

etc.

I checked around with many professional genealogists. None of them accept British Colonial America and British North America, plain and simple.

Why do those in Place-Standardization Committee insist on this. I kill every one I see in my family lines and stated plainly "No records exist under "British Colonial America".

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: How did those standardized place-names become standardized place-names in the first place?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: This change is just to remove place names in the standardized name field that had erroneous, indecipherable or nonsensical characters words or phrases as a part of the place-name. That is the extent of this change.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: The way we have handled standardization has changed over time. There was a time when we accepted anything, early on. We are now correcting that data or removing it to be more in compliance with today's policies.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Jim - many thanks for responding promptly.

Re your proposal:
1. You make it clear which place-name we're talking about - excellent.

2. "is not an actual place-name (it contains indecipherable or nonsense words or characters), "
I'm still not entirely clear what "not an actual place-name" means.

If you mean that it's not in the list of Standard Place-Names, then I don't think you need the bit in brackets, you just need to say something like "is not a place-name in the list of accepted, Standard Place-Names".

If you mean that you're rejecting stuff with garbage characters while not checking if it's in the list of Standard Place-Names, then it's more like "is not of the correct format for a place-name (it contains indecipherable or nonsense words or characters), "

To try and illustrate, the first option there would reject both "Great Grimpen Mire, Devon, England" and "Devon***!!!??, England"

The 2nd option would accept "Great Grimpen Mire, Devon, England" but reject "Devon***!!!??, England".

"Great Grimpen Mire, Devon, England" isn't in the list of accepted, Standard Place-Names (although it is in The Hound of the Baskervilles!)

I'm hoping you will be rejecting both....

3. I'd prefer that the blog entry be corrected if only because not everyone comes here.... But I'd prefer the blog entry goes out even in its present state rather than be held up waiting a correction.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Adrian, the part in parenthesis was to let you and others know what we are talking about, as an example. This is not a sweep of the data base, it is a targeted clean-up. "Not an actual place-name" means because of the weird characters or nonsense statements, you will never find this place-name in any reference. A place with this name does not exist. It doesn't work to just say "not in our standards table" because we are not searching for names not in the standards table, we are searching for names that are obviously not valid place-names and then validating that by checking the standards table. I know that is a fine nuance, but it is why I put the part in parentheses so as to not give the idea that this is a full standards sweep. I hope that makes sense. But we are checking against the table as a part of this clean-up. Just not to start things off.
In your Devon example we would reject both, most likely. The second for sure, the first if our search algorithm worked right. I cannot guarantee that it would be caught however without running some tests, which I am not inclined to recommend because of the expense. I feel ok if we didn't catch it and relied on a community member to point it out.
Thanks again!!

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: OK thanks. Yes, it is a bit of a fine nuance - not quite sure how you'd word it in a blog entry to satisfy pedants like me without making it way too long an explanation for normal people! I think we go with your suggestion... And anyone who wants more data should come here.