People who "unstandarize" place names in Family Tree
What can be done to prevent a user from changing place names in family tree that are already standardized and complete? I am aware of a user that insists on do "enmass" changes to hundreds (even thousands) of family tree profiles that have place names that are already entered in family search standard format the result being that they are no longer standardized and become "flagged" by the new data quality software and in some cases resulting in the profile person not being qualified for temple work. I have communicated with the individual involved and it has only resulted in abusive and bullying responses. Has anyone else had any experience in this area that might provide for some kind of amicable solution? thoughts and ideas much appreciated.
Answers
-
First of all, can you give some examples of profiles where this has occurred? It sounds like there is a basic misunderstanding of how place names work in Family Tree.
Also, how does it seem they are doing this? Changing thousands of names would be a lot of work unless syncing with an external database.
1 -
I do hope this is not an automated script. That should be easier to judge once we have examples, but the abusive responses received make me think it won't be TreeBuilding Project etc. The legit integrated 3rd party products aren't, I think, allowed to do bulk updates.
0 -
This image was removed by FamilySearch
0 -
My example screen printed has been deleted, but here are some PID's that will illustrate what I am referring to.
KCG1-1DN, LB9K-VWP, 96ZB-X2K, LRJC-N1W, MD97-RTH
Hope this helps, Thanks
0 -
I found a few of this user's contributions in my analysis database, some with reason 'BCG standard'. My feeling is that this is not an automated script, but that the changes may be coming on an item by item basis from a 3rd party product*, perhaps one that uses a different Place standard.
*There is one very weird change where the 'BCG standard' has got duplicated many times - see 29WW-6RP, change dated 23 Aug 2025 - makes me wonder if this was a glitch in a 3rd party product.
All the ones I have looked at do seem to have maintained a correct underlying standardised Place throughout.
0 -
is there a definition of FamilySearch policy for standardized place names? I know they seem to stress it, especially with the "Get Involved" app, but I'm not sure I understand the definition. And it appears that the standardized place names are only a "recommendation" rather than a "best practices". thanks.
0 -
Oh, dear. It's a battle of conflicting "standards." Those artificially contrived, "looks like a good way to do things," single-expert vs random committee, changeable with the times vs set in concrete, "that's how we've done it on paper for decades" vs "we use computers now," "standards."
In this case it is FamilySearch vs. The Board for the Certification of Genealogists.
FamilySearch doesn't use "County" designations. BCG apparently does.
FamilySearch encourages including cemetery names so the cemetery can be shown directly on the time line map. BCG apparently does not.
FamilySearch has started enforcing, via the Data Quality Score, the use of historical place names. BCG apparently wants modern place names.
I say "apparently" because I have not looked through their website for the actual standards but "BCG Standard" is being put in the reason statements.
This is going to be a problem. Certified expertise can sometimes (not always!) lead to a bit of rigid inflexibility.
Do keep in mind that as long as the correct FamilySearch's standard is linked to whatever is displayed on the profile page, the place name is correctly standardized and the program will function just fine.
I'm afraid this can't be viewed as abuse or even wrong. It's just a difference of opinion.
Maybe you can point out the advantages of including the cemetery name to get the right map positioning and can stress that the Data Quality Score really wants us to use the historically correct place name in order to have a good score.
3 -
Gordon, thanks for you "insight". My thought is "if you participate in FamilySearch you should follow their best practices and not impose another standard such as BCS standard"….. Just sayin'
1 -
"Is there a definition of FamilySearch policy for standardized place names?" Not that I have found that really explains this as clearly as it should be.
However, it is clear from the program itself and from most places where FamilySearch talks about it that to standardize a place name does not mean "enter place name in one and only one manner with only the information we allow and only in the format we allow."
What to standardize does mean is to link an appropriate Places Database Name (aka the standard place name) to whatever form of the name the user enters to be displayed on the profile page:
Not standardized (notice the clear declaration of the fact):
Standardized:
Also Standardized:
In these data view windows, the upper place name is the name as entered by the user for other users to read. The lower place name is the linked standard that the Family Tree program uses in all calculations including finding duplicates, finding hints, the data quality scoring, and evaluating for inconsistencies when merging. FamilySearch really doesn't care what the upper display name is (except for the fact that there are times when the only way to get the correct linked standard is to follow their lead for entering the display name) but really wants that second, standardized version linked correctly.
Even when the display name looks identical to the linked standard, you can see that these are two different pieces of data when editing place names:
The map icon in text entry box shows that in the above case they just happen to be the same. It is more clear that these are two different data items when the two names for the place are different:
3 -
@dlmelville - it does occur to me that "abusive and bullying responses" are something that FS Support claim to respond to. Might be worth a try if you can demonstrate that.
As for BCG Standards, I just tried a few searches over coffee and failed to find anything online about the BCG and placenames. The AI Summary in Google Search does say "When referencing a location, it must be cited accurately, including the name of the place and its corresponding jurisdiction at the time the record was created." However, since that's an AI Summary, I dare not regard it as authoritative as it could be conflating different aspects.
I also failed to find any obvious links on the BCG site to placename standards. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I ran out of coffee before I could delve that deep. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that level of detail is only in their printed books - indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if expecting a simple standard is, err, over simplistic.
4 -
@Adrian Bruce1 I don't have a copy of the BCG Standards book handy, but my library holds a copy of the 2019 updated edition. Putting it on my list to view on my next visit. I have a few books I've been meaning to view. Genealogy books are non-circulating meaning I can only view there.
I'll make copies of relevant pages.3
