In answer to my comment: "For my own reasons I did not use the numbering system as in the September quarter, thus the March quarter has unique numbers for each file." Graham said: "My feeling about using your own numbering system is that we lose the opportunity of matching page to page when we come to match the double entry keying of that quarter so I would prefer that we all were consistent." It seems to me that nobody has thought through this issue and things have been left to the Coordinators. This is particularly the case when it comes to naming files. If definitive rules were specified, we would not be in the position where we are trying to formulate them after the work has been done. One of the obvious problems, from my point of view, is that as a coordinator I do not know the way the overall system works. While this may not concern all coordinators, I feel that if I don't know the system I can't be expected to make rational decisions. As a final comment, given that indexes are used to speed the process of answering peoples search queries what difference does it make which order the files are collated? Brian Smart > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Hart [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28 October 2001 14:57 > To: Brian Smart > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: +PAGE > > > Hi Brian, > > Brian Smart wrote: > > > > Having moved the following to a different list, could I > please have an > > answer! > > You may have noticed its been somewhat busy today ! ... and > answers need > to be thought out .. I may not be the best person to answer a > particular > query ..... etcetcetc > > > > > > The explanation I was given regarding the need for > +PAGE,???? on the end of > > a file was as follows. > > The data compiler looks for the +PAGE entry to know which > is the next file > > in the sequence. I had no problems with that, and it seems perfectly > > logical. > > > > How is the following explained? > > > > In the 1845 births there are three strands of numbers all > starting from 1. > > Thus unless action is taken to avoid it, there will be > three files with the > > same +PAGE number at the end of the file. Although at > present +PAGE has not > > been added, two files that show this are 45B3A002 and 45B3J002. > > > > If the data compiler can overcome this, is +PAGE really needed? > > Yes, without the +PAGE we have no idea where a page starts > and ends and > can't easily identify missing pages. > > The +PAGE gives us checkpoints for the matching process. > > Where there are multiple strands of page numbers, I would have thought > that the alphabetical sequence would make it clear which was which .. > when the matching starts, the code should be able to warn > that the page > sequence dropped from z back to n or whatever. This can then be > investigated and checked. > > > For my own reasons I did not use the numbering system as in > the September > > quarter, thus the March quarter has unique numbers for each file. > > My feeling about using yor own numbering system is that we lose the > opportunity of matching page to page weh we come to match the double > entry keying of that quarter so I would prefer that we all were > consistent. However, I am not thinking clearly at the moment > (headache) > and have a nagging doubt on this ... Dave is probably better > positioned > to answer it when he returns to the fray. > > Cheers > > Graham > > > > > Regards > > > > Brian Smart > > > > ============================== > > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query! >

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:54:30 -0000, you wrote: >In answer to my comment: > >"For my own reasons I did not use the numbering system as in the September >quarter, thus the March quarter has unique numbers for each file." > >Graham said: > >"My feeling about using your own numbering system is that we lose the >opportunity of matching page to page when we come to match the double >entry keying of that quarter so I would prefer that we all were >consistent." > >It seems to me that nobody has thought through this issue and things have >been left to the Coordinators. This is particularly the case when it comes >to naming files. File naming isn't important (to us, because we don't use it) co-ordinators have the opportunity to issue their own instructions on this point. >If definitive rules were specified, we would not be in the position where we >are trying to formulate them after the work has been done. > >One of the obvious problems, from my point of view, is that as a coordinator >I do not know the way the overall system works. While this may not concern >all coordinators, I feel that if I don't know the system I can't be expected >to make rational decisions. We will try and explain how it works to those who feel the need to know (provided they understand that some of it isn't written yet, and is more in our heads than in reality). The majority wouldn't want to know though (trust me on this one!!) >As a final comment, given that indexes are used to speed the process of >answering peoples search queries what difference does it make which order >the files are collated? It allows us to properly match the double entries and to validate the completeness of the keying. -- Dave Mayall

Hello Dave, You said regarding the way the system works: > We will try and explain how it works to those who feel the need to > know (provided they understand that some of it isn't written yet, and > is more in our heads than in reality). The majority wouldn't want to > know though (trust me on this one!!) I feel the need to know. Thus as good an explanation as exists would be welcome. Regards Brian Smart >