Using the Current Location Name vs. the Historical Location Name
I would like to suggest that Conflict Free Data not be activated with the Family Historian uses the modern name of a location vs. the historical accurate name of the location.
In order to connect with the ancestors and locate records, it is often easier to use the current day name of a location vs. the historical name. This is especially true in regards to Occupied Lands where the name and the country are changing. When those living in the area no longer associate with a county but only associate with ethnic origins.
Thanks.
Leslie Edmunds
Comments
-
@Leslie Edmunds Thank you for the feedback. Can you tell what area you are referring to? Many of the algorithms are adjusted by place and time.
0 -
@Leslie Edmunds But the attached source record's metadata won't reflect the modern place name, it will (and in my view should) reflect the place as the record sees it. The source linker will work off that same metadata and thus use the historical name. (Otherwise, what happens when the current jurisdiction changes again in the future?)
DQS doesn't, I think, have the detailed historical cross-references available to it to know that a named place was in one jurisdiction in 1850 and another in 1860 (made-up example). (Nor, necessarily, are other researchers aware of this either who may be visiting the profile and wanting to verify the sources.) Happy to be corrected on this as I feel such a cross-reference is the real answer here.
0 -
I agree with the previous comment.
I come from Barnard Castle, a market town at what was (before boundary changes) at the very southern part of County Durham, England. The River Tees formed the boundary between Durham and Yorkshire (North Riding). Startforth village, township, and rural district, just over the river, was therefore in Yorkshire, though it is now officially in County Durham.
If you allow historical sources for Startforth parish or for census details to be recorded as supporting evidence for a person's residence, it will cause problems if the current status (County Durham) is used instead of (as it was) Yorkshire. I don't see how the DQS can handle this without a very sophisticated and very carefully maintained source of place data.
Also, users who do not know the area and its history will simply become confused when looking for additional information. (Some data will be found in County Durham archives, other will only be found in North Yorkshire archives.)
1 -
@MandyShaw1 @FrankLittle Thank you for adding to this discussion. It is very helpful to have different perspectives.
0 -
@Leslie Edmunds Thanks for the suggestion.
While the modern name definitely can make it easier to locate records, the historical place is important. My suggestion may be to make a note of the modern name in the reason statement or notes.
If you select the modern name instead of the historical place sometimes you will get the wrong quality scoring rules or no rules, because the score works through the historical place and year to select the rules to score with.
Does that help?
Thanks again!0 -
No that doesn't help. I already knew that the DQS was using dated locations. The request is to tell the DQS to stop decreasing quality when one of the associated through time names of a location is used whether or not it is in the correct time period.
0 -
(Hochstetno, Czechoslovakia) and (Vysoka Pri Morave, Slovakia) and (Magasfalu, Hungary) and (Magasfallven, Hungary) are all the names for the same location based on what country occupied the land at the time. Hochstetten was also used as the beginning of the Austro-Hungarian empire prior to the converting everything to something Hungarian sounding.
If you want to research this location and connect to the land, you will need to do research in Vysoka Pri Morave, Slovakia and the Bratislava Archives where all the records are stored modernly.
I understand the importance of historical accuracy, however I think the DQS is more encouraging the modern day user. And, thus I don't think you should "ding" them if they used one of the correct names of the location.
SIDE NOTE: The Fan Chart (birth countries) uses a different color for each country listed on the chart. Thus, if your people were born in Boston, British Colonial America and in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, then they were born in two different countries. But really, were they? The Fan Chart is the most effective way to communicate family history to beginners or people who are not as interested in it as the Family Historian. So, creating two different countries for the same little place is complicating the Family Historian's ability to share the history simple.
So, that's my feedback. Please focus on connections and inspirations for the amateur family historians whenever possible. (I might have a different/new perspective on this as a FamilySearch Center director focusing on the needs of my community patrons.)
Leslie Edmunds, Director Redmond Washington FamilySearch Center
0 -
@Leslie Edmunds but the point is, FS just do not have the accurate data (geographical locations mapped to jurisdiction types+placenames+accurate time periods) that would permit cross-referencing/the use of placename timelines in the way you suggest. All they can match to is the historical placename that matches the record.
You might find this thread interesting:
1 -
There is always going to be some conflicts between the way any one person would like to do something and the generally recognized best practice for doing something. In the case of place names, that currently accepted best practice is to use historical place names. (See the section on Data Entry Standards here:
Now standards do change and when there is a convincing argument they have. For example, it used to be the "standard" years ago for FamilySearch to require patronymic names to be entered as ending in -sen even when that was horribly inaccurate and should have been -datter. I assume it was to make alphabetizing easier. Now that computer search routines are better, -son, -sen, -dotter, and -datter are all treated the same so names can be entered correctly.
And we users certainly have the ability to ignore current standards, enter data they way we want to, and ignore the quality checker. But we can't complain if a few dozen of our cousins who agree with the standard change what we enter into this public, open edit tree to match that standard.
Using the correct historical name can be very important. For example, if I had an ancestor born in the 1800's in what is now Lindesnes, Vest-Agder, Norway, searching in the Norwegian Archives for him in Lindesnes will never give me any records. That is because Lindesnes did not exist in the 1800s. Recording his birth place as that is historically wrong and will be very frustrating for the next researcher who will not be able to find any records and who will not get any hints from FamilySearch because there are no records for Lindesnes on FamilySearch either.
Lindesnes currently covers portions of the older municipalities of Spangereid, Sør-Audnedal, Vigmostad, Mandal, and Marnardal municipalities. After I determine which of those five places he lived in and enter the historically correct place name, dozens of FamilySearch hints may show up for him and his family. Also, other researchers will know where to look in the Norwegian Archives for records for them.
So I completely agree with the current flagging of place names that are historically incorrect. This teaches "the amateur family historians" about the history of places which can add immensely to the inspiration and connections they feel. As the Places database expands, users can easily look up the entire history of a place's name and jurisdictional changes. And even now they can quickly see what the current place name is by checking the Timeline map.
If my people were born in Boston, British Colonial America and in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, then, yes, they were born in two different countries and I can immediately be reminded that some of them lived through the Revolutionary War. How inspiring is that!
3 -
@Leslie Edmunds Thanks for your answer.
This is definitely an area that would be nice to make some changes in, but Mandy is right we don't have the accurate place data yet. It's a hard problem to solve. I hope we can get there eventually.
Thanks.0
