Yeap, I can agree and I have sent a number of requests as well as a scathing note about the self destruct button called merge.
I can agree that following the guidelines and standards is essential practice in developing a tree of any worth.
Honestly, I can not comment on the placename wworkaround as I have not seen what it entales, although, I am aware of somee of the issues.
I still am going to have to disagree with you though on public trees being totally worthless. I think, if mined properly, the mountain of crap, can still yield a diamond in the rough, following proper vetting.
I think we both look at FTM differently. I look at it as a tool or workspaace to help me in my efforts to build my tree. It is however, not my tree, it is my work in progress. When and if, I feel it is properly sourced amd loose ends removed, I will decide where, I will keep the tree I built using FTM.
I am also going to still disagree with you on this particular "workaround". I'm not even sure it is a workaround. All I am doing is adding a custom fact, which is a feature of FTM. And esentially separating facts from fiction.
know what you are saying, that if in the future they address the issue, it may come back to haunt me. However in this case, I am flagging public tree data. If a future enhancement comes along, I can say use the flagged tree data only or use everything, but the flagged tree data.
My tree is private and my fact is private. As far as the world is concerned, it does not even exsist.
Lastly, yes by all means send in those requests. However, developers also look, or they should be looking at how folks are using the software to identify issue. e.g "No body seems to be using the merge feature, why not?" So by seeing workarounds, developers can see what changes they can make.
I believe we are going to have to just agree to disagree. I will say this, if ever I need help with standards and practices or how to properly document a unique source or citation, I know who I'd buzz.