<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: 9.3 vs 10.1 Yields Different Results in Data Management Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85013#M4903</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;There is really no bug to fix, it is a default feature.&amp;nbsp; By default, searching without zones is not turned on.&amp;nbsp; If you open the locator properties dialog and go to the "Geocoding options" section, just change the "Match with no zones" property to "Yes".&amp;nbsp; This should solve your problem.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Brad&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:58:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BradNiemand</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-01-31T20:58:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>9.3 vs 10.1 Yields Different Results</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85010#M4900</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Why does the 10.1 geocoder yield different results on the same dataset?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;All of the geocoding parameters are the same, the only difference I see is that the Standardized Address checkbox is greyed out in the 10.1 Geocoder.&amp;nbsp; I have created several geocoders including single address and general address all with the same results.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Here is a specific example:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;These addresses were matched in 9.3 but were unmatched in 10.1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Input Address_____________ Matching Address___________Score&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;10382 SW KENNEDY ST______10380 SW KENNEDY ST______64 &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;10618 NW MALIA LN_________10617 NW MALIA LN________64&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;10918 SW CELESTE LN_______10910 SW CELESTE LN______64&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;[ATTACH=CONFIG]21162[/ATTACH]&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;[ATTACH=CONFIG]21163[/ATTACH]&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Any ideas?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:01:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85010#M4900</guid>
      <dc:creator>RogerLivingston</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-29T15:01:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 9.3 vs 10.1 Yields Different Results</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85011#M4901</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;This thread should answer your question:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/61960-Geocoding-10-vs-10.1"&gt;http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/61960-Geocoding-10-vs-10.1&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Brad&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:08:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85011#M4901</guid>
      <dc:creator>BradNiemand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-29T23:08:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 9.3 vs 10.1 Yields Different Results</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85012#M4902</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Original User: woobers&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I am running 10.1 SP1, which according to the 10 vs 10.1 thread was going to address the issue w/10.1 geocoding.&amp;nbsp; Did it get fixed in 10.1 SP1 or not?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:26:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85012#M4902</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous User</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-31T14:26:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 9.3 vs 10.1 Yields Different Results</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85013#M4903</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;There is really no bug to fix, it is a default feature.&amp;nbsp; By default, searching without zones is not turned on.&amp;nbsp; If you open the locator properties dialog and go to the "Geocoding options" section, just change the "Match with no zones" property to "Yes".&amp;nbsp; This should solve your problem.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Brad&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:58:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/9-3-vs-10-1-yields-different-results/m-p/85013#M4903</guid>
      <dc:creator>BradNiemand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-31T20:58:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

