Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Guidelines for Entering Places

Expand Messages
  • Rick
    I am going to share with the members of our ward what they need to do to clean up there genealogical records in order to get ready for the nFS. But I would
    Message 1 of 46 , Oct 22, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I am going to share with the members of our ward what they need to do
      to clean up there genealogical records in order to get ready for the
      nFS. But I would like to have one point clarified first if I could.
      The is concerning place names. In the nFS Users Guide in Appendix C
      it makes several points such as:

      • If you know them, enter all of the levels, such as cities, counties,
      regions, districts, prefectures, provinces, and states. If you do not
      know all of the levels, FamilySearch will help you to add them.
      • Enter the smallest government level first, and move to the largest.
      For example, start with the town, and end with the country.
      • Include the name of the country whenever possible.

      English Examples:
      Chicago, Cook, Illinois
      Southampton, Hampshire, England
      Dafen, Carmarthen, Wales
      Doncaster, Victoria, Australia
      Akaroa, Canterbury, New Zealand

      Question,
      In the first point it starts with "city" and ends with "state".
      Then it says to end with the "country".
      Then in the examples it shows: "Chicago, Cook, Illinois" with out
      listing the country followed by other examples listing the countries.

      If a large portion of our ansestors lived in the USA to do we need to
      put "USA" or not? Or does it even mater that much in the nFS?

      I have seen some of the members records and some have used "USA" and
      others have not. So before I go tell everybody they need to add "USA"
      , if that is the country, I would like to know what is the recommended
      method for the nFS.

      Thanks,
      Rick Merrill
      Athens, AL
    • Russell Hltn
      ... Thank you for confirming my suspicions. That is very helpful. ... I m still fuzzy here - at some point the system needs to be able to associate what
      Message 46 of 46 , Oct 29, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10/29/07, Randy Bryson <brysonrw@...> wrote:
        > Places are standardized to a "placeId" which is basically a unique number. All variations of that place, regardless of time are associated to that id. Currently, the system returns the modern name, though it is able to understand or interpret the input of historical places and historical place names.

        Thank you for confirming my suspicions. That is very helpful.


        > Thus, the system will accept place names of the period of the record and will associate them to what is termed a "standardized" place. So my recommendation is to follow standard form and enter the place name used at the time of the event when entering information. When the data is received it goes through a standardization process, but the original text is not changed. It is just associated to a standardized place in the authorities systems.
        >
        > In searching, the original text, the standardized text and the placeId are all used to identify records by the algorithms, so a search of Samuel Bryson in Sessions Settlement, Utah, returns a Samuel Bryson in Bountiful, Utah just fine.
        >

        I'm still fuzzy here - at some point the system needs to be able to
        associate what you've entered to a standardized, if historical, name.
        I'm leery of entering "custom" simply because I don't know if it's
        able to properly assign it's PlaceID. Can you clarify on "best
        practice" here?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.