Do the engineers intend to address the incorrectly standardized placenames issues?
There are probably are least two (maybe more) reasons that users are finding their relatives' placename events have been incorrectly standardized. The most common one, of late, relates what has transpired to be the misconceived idea of an automated placename standardization procedure.
@N Tychonievich has been of great help in passing on individual examples reported on this forum, but the issue needs to be given much wider attention in order to resolve the current, widespread mess that is having negative effects in tracing our relatives' records.
The example below is an interesting one, whereby the "London" birthplace of members of the same household in this census record has somehow been standardized differently. I admit I have not taken time to analyse a cause for this problem, if it is indeed possible to find one. The URL is https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.anyDate.from=1911&q.anyDate.to=1911&q.anyPlace=london&q.anyPlace.exact=on&q.surname=plat%2Aman&q.surname.exact=on&f.collectionId=1921547, if anyone would like to check this out. However, it seems quite baffling how both Marks and Morris have had their London birthplace standardized as "London, Moral Township, Shelby, Indiana, United States ", whereas Louis (and David, off screenshot) have had theirs correctly standardized as "London, England, United Kingdom".
Would someone at FamilySearch please give this, and other "standardization issues", some serious attention, rather than merely addressing the "auto-standardized" examples on a one-by-one basis?