On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:09:09 +0100, "Steven Gibbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >"Bob LeChevalier" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected] >> >> That is the difference in my approach. I generally don't add someone >> to my data base unless I have connected them to at least one other >> person in my data base. Unlinked individuals are better dealt with in >> a flat table (spreadsheet) than in a relational data base. > >How do you do that when the data in the record is inadequate to provide >linkage? I used to keep my parish register extractions sorted in text >files, but it became impossible to find things once the files became >significantly large. > >Imaginr that you have the will of a John Smith which names his sons as >William and Thomas. Imagine also that you have a marriage certificate for a >Thomas Smith that names his father as John Smith. Clearly on the evidence >I've presented they may or may not be the same people. Can you search your >text files easily to find all candidates for the Thomas Smith who married, >subject to the constraint that his father is called John? If, not having >looked at the family for a few years, you later come across a document which >confirms that Thomas has a brother William, or a document which suggests >that Thomas has no brothers, can you rearrange your thought processes to >take this into account? It might be easier if you transfer the data from a spreadsheet to a database program. It is quite easy to do that in most cases. Database programs usually have better reporting facilities. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk