Improve Place Names
Who among you improving place names here?
Best Answers
-
Diane
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Question: WHY do you ask such?
Brett
ps: I know that the 'Answer' to your 'Question' is: MANY of us, at one time or another.
1 -
Daine
You are not alone ...
As I suggested ...
MANY, of the Participants, in this Forum, have at one time or another, assisted in the "Improve Place Names".
As, evidenced in the past by , 'Questions'; and, 'Posts', in this Forum.
By the way ...
Were you aware that there is a specific 'group' in this Forum; being:
"Groups" Section
Home > Groups > Improve Place Names
Improve Place Names
Description:
PLEASE NOTE: This app is designed to add standardized names to people's records where the standardized name is not entered. It is not to improve or correct the standardized name, nor is it to do anything at all to FamilySearch's list of standardized names.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/group/98-improve-place-names
Although, unfortunately, not very active.
Still, the 'group' is there, to utlise.
Brett
0
Answers
-
Well, I just want to say that improving place names for me is an another way to serve! May the rest try it in their most convenient time. 😊😉💚
0 -
The recent knowledge base article explaining the misguided decision to deliberately employ anachronism to the place names database for the western territories of today's United States demonstrates that the place names database has no further usefulness for users trying to enter place information in the Family Tree. The decision also eliminates the useful project to improve the historical records index, since the correct place names will no longer be available to be chosen. Oh well. For a while, FamilySearch showed signs of trying to improve the user's experience. No longer. It is back to the old tried and true days of chaos and inaccuracy.
5 -
I raised this issue at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/123608/please-reverse-the-recent-action-that-means-there-is-no-separation-of-u-s-states-and-territories#latest. As you can see, this appears to have been passed to the Places section for their response.
It is a shame that FamilySearch has chosen not to advise us of the reason it is now no longer considered to be important to standardize placenames based on the period of time in which an event took place. The article issued specifically addresses to "Territory / State" issue and not whether, in line with this, there will be wholesale changes to follow. I am particularly interested in whether there will continue to be alternatives involving places within the (now) United Kingdom - as I do not wish to make any further "corrections" if historical accuracy is to be disregarded here, too.
3 -
It is particularly disappointing that the western states were picked out for this bias, but the eastern states were not included. If there is now no Oklahoma Territory, why should there be a Massachusetts Bay Colony, British Colonial America?
You know, one of the most interesting things about genealogy is learning about the places where our ancestors lived. Family Tree should assist us by presenting the world as it actually was at those times and in those places.
It seems that the reason for vandalizing the database was to simplify searches, using place names that are familiar to people as of today. So, for example, one could more easily search the records index or Family Tree for Oklahoma without having to know that there was an Oklahoma Territory, or where it was, or when it was. Believe you me, I understand this. However, there are better ways in computer science to deal with the problem. Family Tree already deals with a similar problem concerning peoples' names by indexing alternate names like married names, nicknames, stage names, and so forth. There is no reason why Oklahoma Territory could not have had an alternative name of Oklahoma if that would help the search algorithms to find the desired people or records. But, why eliminate the truth? I just don't get it, and I never will.
So, my response will be to stop trying to improve the index for records where the historically correct name is not available. I will continue to use historically correct names in Family Tree profiles notwithstanding the negative effect that this will have on the timeline feature. This is unfortunate, but the importance of historical accuracy and truthfulness outweighs the reasons that the place names people have given for vandalizing the place names database.
2 -
I would swear that Utah, the state, also had a choice for Utah Territory at one time. That choice is no longer there.
1 -
Yes - that is part of the issue being discussed here. FamilySearch has announced that for some "Territories" (e.g. Utah) they have scrapped this option, so you now have to standardize the place name as "Utah, United States".
0 -
Yes, I do Improve Place Names for the United States and try my best at it.1 -
Just a general comment about efforts to improve place names. I am grateful for the opportunity to try to help with this feature and do my best to recommend new locations be added to the Standardized list, however, because Family Tree is designed to allow users to be specific in a location field while linking what they type to a more generalized Standardized location, I have no problem waiting for decisions that affect locations that appear in Family Tree. The following knowledge articles explain how to link what you type with a more general standardized location, and how to then recommend a new location to be considered.
I am grateful for all of the efforts and comments made by those who wish to reflect accurate locations for the life events of their ancestors and I will continue to do my best to improve the information that is in Family Tree.
0
