Hi Thelma, Please allow me to ramble on with my thoughts on this continuing question of "file names", "organizing", etc. At 09:57 AM 11/14/2005, you wrote: >I am a long-time CLOOZ user and love it! >However, I have not entered any data for a long time and have run into an >organizational problem. >I have Documents filed under Births 0001, Deaths 0001, Marriages 0001 and >Internet Information 1000 etc. >Internet information is my problem. >I have begun a file Internet Information 0001. Some internet pages I >copied have birth ,death and marriage info for several people. If I file >this under Internet Information 0001 and use the event column for Birth I >run into a problem with where to enter the marriage and death info. Same >problem would be if I were to enter all the information under Birth 0001. >In this case of multiple information data, would I have one copy for each >bit of information? Since I first found CLOOZ years ago, folks, including myself, have been wrestling with this "organizing" problem. Liz told us early on to use the most basic KISS principles, but we pressed ahead with our established norms. Because of the "organizing" problem, when Liz announced a new version forthcoming some time ago, I ceased entering data with the intention of inputting my new and old data into the new version in a more simplified manner. So please forgive me if my memory is "a little dim" here and there. I am now of the mind that many of us have totally over-complicated what I now perceive as one of the most basic values of the CLOOZ database. By that I mean that CLOOZ has the structure and architecture to pull together all sorts of bits and pieces of information in order to allow the researcher to FOCUS on the genealogy problem being researched, rather than "how" it is organized. To CLOOZ, it matters not where the information is found - nor filed; if the data deals with any information about John Doe of Podunk, AR 1850-1940, all of the data will be available in concise reports regardless of its source. Assuming correct data entry, the source of the data will be clearly shown, allowing one to re-visit the "hardcopy" to verify, cogitate, or for whatever reason we return to paper copies. Because we have been raised in a "paper data organization" world, it is uncomfortable for most of us to think about filing an important document in any other way. In other words, birth certificates should be filed with other birth certificates, etc. That's just the way most of us think. The challenge to me was to ask myself "why"? If I have all of my certificates filed in books or folders by type, then I have to decide on their "internal" order. Do I file and number the certificates by date? By family? By surname? At some point we throw up our hands and make a purely arbitrary decision and vow to "stick to it". So what we have really done is to create some "defined" filing architecture that by the nature of our genealogy calling can not be without problems. Picture twins. Do we number and file the two certificates alphabetically by given name, or by age or time of birth? Decisions, decisions, decisions. But we, including myself, are "satisfied" because we have a book or file called Census or Births, with papers numbered CEN0001, CEN0002, etc. I finally realized (rather late in the game) that so long as I am faithful to CLOOZ, it matters not one whit whether my census page is numbered and filed as CEN0054 or just plain 0054. Why do I say this? Because - no matter WHAT arbitrary filing system that I devise, once my paper information starts to grow, some other Index, or list, or database will be necessary to help me find what I need WITHIN my neatly labeled notebook or folder. In other words, once I have a large file, I need "some" external reference to guide me to find the 1892 Kings County State Census page within the 300 plus census page print-outs that I hold. Perhaps I can remember that I've filed these pages by state and by census year; or did I really do it by state, by county, by census year; or was that by year, by state, by county? In other words, there is NO WAY one can devise a perfect "subject oriented" filing system that probably will not be blown away when we suddenly discover that our long lost aunt was actually living in Vancouver, BC in 1900, and not in Washington State. So that Canadian 1901 census page is either filed out of order, or we "adjust" to the problem, numbering that page CEN0054A, or something like that. Then three years later we have no idea how we numbered that page, and we must resort to our CLOOZ database to find it. Could we find it if filed with all the other census pages? Of course - but we would either have to resort to some "index", or riffle page by page, hoping to remember the "sub-architecture" that we invented to fit that particular "anomaly". In my humble opinion - this "simple" use of CLOOZ is exactly how things should be. In other words, through the beauty of the CLOOZ architecture, if it is numbered simply 0054, then it resides at the 54th "place" in the paper file, be it notebook, folder, etc. But JOE, I admonish myself, if I file it with the other census pages at least I will know what file it is in, and I won't need to search through many file folders. I answer myself that if I know the document number is simply 0054, it is in the 54th position in File One, no matter what the file identity is. Let's think about one of our personal favorite genealogy family history books (don't we all have at least one?). Folks, we are extremely happy that the writer prepared an index at the end listing alphabeticallt every surname, with given name and listed every page on which our dear ancestor is noted. I submit to you that this "architecture" is a tiny mini-model of the architecture that CLOOZ allows. If your ancestor is noted on 43 different pages, the index points you to each and every page. Without the index, you would page through the entire book, reading or at least scanning for the person of interest. To me the page number represents a CLOOZ file name, and the book represents the CLOOZ database. If there is an obituary listed in the book on page 79, with wife, brothers, sisters, married names, residences, etc., listed, they are each individually referenced to page 79 in the index. We do not seem to have a problem accepting this architecture in this situation. Such, in my humble opinion, is the wonderful simplicity and beauty allowed by CLOOZ. So Thelma, in the situation you refer to, there would be ONE piece of paper, i.e., 00024 or some such number. Every tidbit of information in the reference would sort to it's proper owner, or value. But for you to check out some tidbit of information as you research using CLOOZ, you would always be referred to 00024; not in one case to CEN0005, in another case to BMD0009, etc. I have lived my six plus decades working diligently to complicate as much of my life as possible. :-( Hopefully when CLOOZ TWO arrives, I will be "mature" enough to break the "filing system" bonds that have held me and watch my family history information flourish. Thanks for bearing with me. Joe Joe Bissett, PIGGOTT/CUMMISKEY List Administrator/Rootsweb I use America's Book CDs in my genealogical research to access otherwise unavailable primary source material. http://www.abcd-usa.com/ I support the Godfrey Memorial Library. http://www.godfrey.org/