Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated

How the system offers Standardized Event Places?

When I add the Standardized Event Place for Birth, Christening, Death or Burial, the system does not offer all Standardized Places! I know there are more options, because I have editing rights to correct Place Names in FamilySearch and I have already done those places.

And I have noticed a defect. Sometimes when trying to add Standardized Event Place for Birth, it only offers Lutherans Parises but not a Municipality/Town/City choices (birth should be under municipality jurisdiction), and adding Standardized Event Place for Christening, it only offers Municipality but not a Lutheran Parish choices (christening should be under Lutheran Paris jurisdiction). It does not even offer both types which should be the right thing to do if the system is not programmed to offer only one jurisdiction.

Then there is that problem, e.g. when person is born 1815 in Iisalmi Finland, I only get:
Iisalmi, Finland, Lutheran Paris 1970-Present
Iisalmen msrk, Finland, Lutheran Parish 1860-1970
Iisalmen ksrk, Finland, Lutheran Parish 1912-1970
and other places from other countries...

Where is the oldest Lutheran Parish, Iisalmi, Finland 1627-1860, which is the right time period? But still not the right Standardized Event Place for Birth! It should be:
Iisalmi, Finland, Town 1627-Present.

On the other hand, I am very pleased for this new update, because it now tells more about those standardized places and you can choose the right time period and jurisdiction. Just waiting that it will show them correctly!
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • I think it was Dan who mentioned somewhere in a comment that there's a known bug/problem with the "standardizer": if two standardized names look identical (that is, the only difference between them is in the labels for things like type of jurisdiction, or in the associated dates -- things that don't show if the display name is chosen to be the standard), then the system only offers one of the standards in the list. (I don't know how it chooses which one, but it's probably either alphabetically first or numerically first by the internal ID number.)

    I'm thinking more and more that we should be including designators in the "Language-Specific Name" (which is what is offered in the list of standards, as far as I can tell). Yes, this will be painful to pedants like me, but it will clarify things when only the unlabeled names are served/shown, and it will work around this bug/quirk/problem of the standardization algorithm.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Thank you, I thought that it might be something like that. I was talking to Alan and he encouraged me to post here. But like you said Dan can answer many our questions. I am also very pedant so I am now quite frustrated for all these bugs. I have solved many problems in correcting place names but when I see now how the system works in real life in FS, I some times think why I do this. There is so much to do in software. But I won't quit, I am hoping that one day our work will work properly.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited