Is there any rule or guideline about what to do when both #COMMENT and #THEORY are appropriate in a particular case? The query arises from 1931B3-B-0073 where the handwritten tries for Bennett,Eileen M. have been transcribed thus Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504a #COMMENT (2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name and is crossed through Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chester,8a,504a Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chelsea,8a,504a #COMMENT(2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name #THEORY (2) District name should be Chester Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chelsea,8a,504a These seem to be later additional details relating to an original typed entry Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504 As you see, the first handwritten entry, like the original typed line, refers to Chester, but after the first version was crossed out a second version has Chelsea instead of Chester as district. Hence the #THEORY(2) line. Jeff

I have a similar sort of query which I sought guidance a short while ago (not via the mailing lists) so a response to your query may possibly answer my query. My query applied to a possible invalid consecutive block of surnames in which #THEORY(67) was used. In the middle of these 67 entries was an entry in which there was an invalid District and so #THEORY was used to describe the invalid District. As in: HAYNE,Ada,Headington,3a,528 #THEORY (67) Sequence error and surname at top of next column indicate surname should be HAYNES HAYNE,Albert James,Southampton,2c,3 etc down to HAYNE,Florence,Cambrdige,3b,474 #THEORY District name Cambrdige is mistyped Cambridge HAYNE,Florence Alberta,Kensington,1a,20 etc remaining 67 entries for surname HAYNE down to HAYNE,William Henry,Strand,1b,494 When carrying out a search for Hayne the returned result only showed the #THEORY (67) note applying to entries preceding the entry containing #THEORY District name Cambrdige is mistyped Cambridge. This meant that about 40 of the #THEORY(67) note was not shown against surname HAYNE entries This implies that only one #THEORY (and I assume #COMMENT) can be effectively shown against an entry. Allan Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Coleman" <Jeff.Coleman@ntlworld.com> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:42 PM Subject: THEORY and COMMENT for the same line Is there any rule or guideline about what to do when both #COMMENT and #THEORY are appropriate in a particular case? The query arises from 1931B3-B-0073 where the handwritten tries for Bennett,Eileen M. have been transcribed thus Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504a #COMMENT (2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name and is crossed through Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chester,8a,504a Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chelsea,8a,504a #COMMENT(2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name #THEORY (2) District name should be Chester Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chelsea,8a,504a These seem to be later additional details relating to an original typed entry Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504 As you see, the first handwritten entry, like the original typed line, refers to Chester, but after the first version was crossed out a second version has Chelsea instead of Chester as district. Hence the #THEORY(2) line. Jeff ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Non-multiple #THEORY and #COMMENT on the same line work. I also believe this multiple will work because the repeat count is the same but since the file has not yet been loaded into the database it is difficult to be sure. However, the case with overlapping multiple entries, as reported by Allan, doesn't work. I have raised a task to correct this. Barrie > -----Original Message----- > From: freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:freebmd-syndicates-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Jeff Coleman > Sent: 29 January 2009 23:42 > To: freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com > Subject: THEORY and COMMENT for the same line > > Is there any rule or guideline about what to do when both > #COMMENT and > #THEORY are appropriate in a particular case? > > > The query arises from 1931B3-B-0073 where the handwritten tries for > Bennett,Eileen M. have been transcribed thus > > Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504a > #COMMENT (2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name > and is crossed > through > Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chester,8a,504a > Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chelsea,8a,504a > #COMMENT(2) Entry reads BANKS OR BENNETT for Mother's name > #THEORY (2) District name should be Chester > Bennett,Eileen M.,Bennett,Chelsea,8a,504a > > These seem to be later additional details relating to an > original typed > entry > Bennett,Eileen M.,Banks,Chester,8a,504 > > As you see, the first handwritten entry, like the original > typed line, > refers to Chester, but after the first version was crossed > out a second > version has Chelsea instead of Chester as district. Hence the > #THEORY(2) > line. > > > Jeff > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the message >