Standardized Updated Information
edited September 28, 2020 in Suggest an Idea
Jeff Wiseman said: That runs contrary to how the location and data systems work. It would also result in many useful features being lost.
With your suggestion, a location like:
22 Page Road, Chillicothe, Ohio
would auto-standardize to:
Chillicothe, Ross, Ohio, United States
Which location gives you more information? Why would you want the more accurate information to be totally replaces with a less accurate generic coordinate? If the feature worked the way you are suggesting, it would trash the more precise location making the additional USEFUL information disappear.
I know of a couple that lived in a Lean-to behind a bank in a particular city. With the current dual naming system I can handle that easily and it will also show up on a map!
Another problem is that many names will not uniquely resolve to a single Standard place name. In these cases you have to specifically choose the standard place name that you want in order to Standardize the display name that you are using. The computer doesn't know enough do that.
And there are other benefits to the dual name system that that I won't go into, but the system is genius! It allows you to assign relatively accurate geo-coordinates to locations that are more accurate than anything in the Standard locations database.
Remember, we have a Standard places database. This is a list of geographical locations along with different names that it had been assigned over the years. It is NOT a names database, it is a PLACES database. These are not just common names. They are "Standard" names that allow you to "Standardize" a given Display name so that it can have map coordinates associated with it.
I'm not criticizing here at all. A lot of folks struggle with understanding how this thing works and FS frequently does not use terminology consistently which exacerbates it. As you become more familiar with how to use this feature, I suspect that you will also get to the point like many of us where you definitely do NOT want a place name of a geographical location automatically replacing the location name that you have entered in the system and already "Standardized" by attaching a "Standard" place name (i.e.,, geo-coordinate identifier) to it.0
Kim- N- Charlene said: Thank you for the update on the information. I really do appreciate all that you all do for us!0
Gordon Collett said: But what about dates, you say, can't they at least be standardized across the board?
We as genealogist have had it drilled into our heads for so long that a date is just a day, month, and year, first by paper forms with little tiny slots for dates and then by computer programs with very limited capabilities that it is hard to realized that dates can contain much more information. Why hide valuable information away in a note?
Here are two examples, both perfectly valid for all routines in Family Tree that show the power of what FamilySearch has developed for us:
Paul said: Gordon
Noting you had still used the day/month/year format in your examples (i.e. 6 March 1884 and 9 September 1810) I tried something a little different. I typed:
8:25 tuesday 1934 july 5
but was still offered 5 July 1934 as the standardized event date. Proves your point!
(As you will be aware, if I click on the inputted date option - instead of the standardized one - this becomes the display date: but it is still standardized correctly, as your examples illustrate.)0
Kim- N- Charlene said: You all have great ideas and suggestions to help us all. Just my thought this morning, is what if we made the standardized event date and place and then if we found more information like 8:25 tuesday 5 July 1934....we could add that.0
Jeff Wiseman said: Exactly. The easiest way to keep the original standard attached is to add the more detailed information at the front of the field.0
Kim- N- Charlene said: Can I just say how grateful I am for all the extra added benefits that have come our way in the last few months. Like being able to click onto the date and see what the attachments have put on. You all are doing an amazing job. And I am grateful.0