What is the reason for the disimproved standard offerings?
When entering a place using the old algorithm for populating the standards drop-down, such as when adding a person or a conclusion using Source Linker, I only need to type as far as "Bana, Kom" in order for the correct entry of "Bana, Komárom, Hungary" to show up in the drop-down. (It's a ways down, after a bunch of things that match fewer characters of what I've typed, but at least it's there.)
When using the new algorithm, such as when adding a conclusion on the new person page, I have to finish typing the entire county in order for the correct entry to show up on the list. At the "Bana, Ko" point, not a single offering is on the correct continent. The later jurisdiction (which has the wrong county) shows up at the very bottom of the list at "Bana, Kom", and moves up a few places for "Bana, Komá" through "Bana, Komáro", but until I type that final 'm', there is no sign of the correct entry.
What is the reasoning behind this serious disimprovement? Why is the algorithm failing to offer a choice that matches every single character I've typed, while offering a gazillion choices that match less than half of it? And more to the point, could this change please be reverted?
Comentários
-
I find this to be the case most of the time, but look at this example. I'm after options for using "Stockton, Durham..." as a placename. If I type "stockton d" I get two options beginning "Stockton D...." followed by other "Stockton" options (not followed by a "D"):
However, if I type "stockton du" I am presented with the following, the screenshot hiding the fact that only "Stockton, Durham..." place nnames (4 of them) are offered as alternatives:
But, instead of getting "better", the result is worse if I input "stockton dur". Again, the screenshot does not illustrate this too well, but I've scrolled down the pick-list a bit to show the options now include 15 "Stockton" locations. including "Stocktons" in South Africa, New Zealand and the USA!
It's quite bizarre how this feature is currently working. As Julia suggests, I sometimes have to type practically the whole placename before being offered the option I am seeking. But there seems no logic to how much of the name one needs to type to get to what you are looking for.
4 -
BTW - I don't see this as being specifically related to the new person page. I was experiencing the inconsistencies I've illustrated well before its introduction.
Are you really comparing "like with like" between old and new versions, Julia? I see your inputs, shown in the "old" and "new" screenshots, do not match - one shows "Bana, Kom" and the other "Bana, Komara". The problem now the old page has completely disappeared is providing further comparisons that would give evidence that this really is a recent issue.
1 -
The screenshots are from different points in the process, so no, they're not technically comparing like with like, but that's because I didn't figure a letter-by-letter series of illustrations would add any value. In my case, using the old algorithm (such as when adding a person using Source Linker), the correct entry shows up on the list at "Bana, Kom", and stays on the list for all of the rest of the letters of the county. In contrast, using the new algorithm (such as when adding or editing something in Vitals), there is no sign of the correct entry on the list anywhere until I type that final 'm'.
0 -
I encountered an example today that can most charitably be described as infuriating.
Try it: add a place conclusion and type in "Brighton". As in the well-known town in England, yes.
Based on the offerings, there's no such thing. In fact, the drop-down doesn't list a single place anywhere in Europe.
You have to type as far as "Brighton, Sus" in order for any of the jurisdictions for the place in England to show up. In other words, you have to figure out the correct jurisdiction from other sources, because FS's new algorithm ain't gonna tell ya.
Please, can this disimprovement be reverted? After today's experience, I find I no longer even care why the change was made. Whatever the reason for the change, the result is a broken tool.
3 -
I agree that the current set-up is not nearly as good as the old set-up. I think it's going to lead to inaccurate location entries because people aren't going to want to bother looking up the information elsewhere first in order to enter enough information for the right choice to be suggested.
0 -
We appreciate you bringing this problem to our attention. The issue has been submitted for investigation. We will get back to you as soon as we have an answer. Thank you so much for your kindness and patience while this is being addressed.
0 -
Hi. I have been told this has been fixed. I would love to know if you are still seeing it on your end. If you are, please provide links that I can forward on.
0 -
@Maile L, the choices have slightly improved for "Bana, Komárom, Hungary" -- the correct choice now shows up on the list (as the fourth entry down) when I get to "Bana, Kom", and the only-slightly-incorrect later jurisdiction is available for "Bana" and "Bana, K" (but not "Bana, Ko"). However, there is no change for "Brighton": if you only know the name of the town, then you do not get any choices anywhere in Europe. (In fact, as far as I can tell, the only offerings in the northern hemisphere are a place each in Canada, Guyana, and Trinidad & Tobago.)
You can check any of these by simply clicking the pencil next to any conclusion in the Family Tree that includes a place field, and typing into the appropriate box.
1
