Both Jill and Chris have a valid point. Perhaps "none" could be used as a default entry in the surname box. Anyway, all the boards will soon be under new software which will have its own "ideosyncrasies", if the current migration of the lists is any indicator. Ed ><snip> > >To add to the comments below: I've come across admins who refuse to >ADD any names to blank surname boxes, and only edit those containing >inappropriate names, words, etc. Then there are the neglected >boards where the admins don't appear to edit at all! >I like your idea in spirit, but I agree with Chris that there are >often posts even on Surname boards that wouldn't require a surname. >Perhaps a [?] button beside the surname box with a question/query >mark that brings up a "help" message regarding "what's this surname box for?" > >~Jill > > >the moving of the surname box to on top of the message makes a lot of sense. >not all the boards are surname boards. Some boards are not about people but >about areas or occupations software etc. so the required filling >could cause problems. >========== >Chris Johnson >Hamilton NZ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Elizondo" <ed@elizondo.org> >Subject: [BAd] blank surname box > > >>Most of the administrative time on my locality board is spent adding >>or correcting surnames in the surname box so the messages can be >>properly indexed. >> >>Here are two suggestions: >>1. the surname entry box should be moved ON TOP of the message entry >>box, so it becomes more obvious to the poster. >>2. the message should not be accepted unless there is an entry in the >>surname box (after all, the boards are SURNAME query boards). >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Ed Elizondo <ed@elizondo.org>