Why attempt to standardise what cannot be standardised?
I'm working through the Record Hints for a Joseph Stubbs, MQVC-3KM, and the Research Help / Show All / Record Hints contains this priceless suggestion:
So the "Other" data on the date of his burial reads - 14 February 1881, Cowfold, Midlands Province, Zimbabwe.
Now, when you actually go into Source Linker for this, the record looks like this:
The Residence for 14 Feb 1881 reads just "Cowfields" - an accurate transcript of the image, by the way. Cowfields is a street in Nantwich, I happen to know, and I presume that it's been standardised to the nearest standard place-name, which must be in Zimbabwe.
Basically this doesn't work, does it?
We've had discussions about standardising these intermediate items such as Research Help / Show All / Record Hints before, and how, particularly with no user intervention, the results are likely to be garbage - as here. If you're a cynic like me and ignore silly values, you won't be affected. If you implicitly believe the computer, you might go no further as you just know that someone in Rhodesia / Zimbabwe isn't your chap.
It all starts to get very risky when the Residence item is (a) pulled out to be indexed and (b) treated as a place-name to be standardised. Residence names like this (and it happens with Census records as well, doesn't it?) are very unlikely to be complete place-names and therefore can't be standardised. You can't concatenate them with the place-name because there's no guarantee it's the place-name with that address - it could be another, higher level place.
I'd be happy to see that "Cowfields" indexed as a simple bit of text. It makes no sense to attempt to standardise it as a place-name - because it isn't - so I recommend that these items are identified as addresses (i.e. just a bit of text), indexed, but not standardised.