Hi all,
We use Geolocate through Specify a lot and we were wondering if you could tell us more about how the uncertainties are determined.
Firstly, we've become wary of some very precise-looking uncertainties that crop up frequently - e.g., 3036m.
Secondly, sometimes we can't work out why Geolocate plotted an uncertainty and whether to trust it. For example, Geolocate gives "White Mound, Oklahoma" a radius of 1807m. Does it have some information about the extent of the hill that we don't? Actually, 1807m might be another recurring uncertainty, so perhaps that's not the best example. 
Finally, we wonder if it is better to have consistency between all the georeferencers in the group, or whether it is better to be more particular about the uncertainty. For example, if a town has an uncertainty that seems too large or small, personal preference might be to resize it. However, if the difference is minor it might be better to keep it as is, so we all get the same result. Plus, its faster if we don't resize. If we had a better understanding of how the uncertainties are determined, we might favor one approach over the other. Currently, we try to be consistent by a) noting in a remarks field if we resized the Geolocate-determined uncertainty and b) by georeferencing localities with the same named-place at the same time. This issue is usually minor, since the differences are small, but any advice appreciated all the same!
Thanks, Una