Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> I thought it was Sweet Ol' Bob, nevertheless... >> >> I recognize the use of "Unknown" so all of them wind up in the "U" >> section of an alpha listing BUT >> >> in your personal opinion why would you not use ? or ??? for unknown? >> >> I deplore filling the blanks with "good intentions". >> >> Don't hold back - I'm used to comments from Sweet Ol' Bobs! 8-) >> >> Hugh <Eagle@bellsouth.net> (J. Hugh Sullivan) > >OP: This was the point of my original question. The use of any >standard characters puts all of these people in the same place in >the index, whether it is at the beginning of the index as ?? or >Unknown. > >I was trying to find an acceptable way to tie these people to the >family they belong without knowing their name. > >Some times when doing research you find Mary "mother of James Jones" >in other documents, Having them in an index quickly identifies >whether you have previously found James Jones's mother's first name. Unless, of course, you have more than one James Jones so research is still necessary. And "mother of" would not be in the "J" group, i. e., not adjacent. If she is linked to James Jones in the data base a double click on either name will take you directly to the family. >What every you do, you need a place to start collecting information, >birth place, date of birth, etc., about Mary "Mother of James Jones" >even though you don't know her maiden name. > >One of those place where you find information on unknown parents is >in the US census. In the census for several years the place of the >parents birth is shown without names, It would be nice to have this >information easily available. (James's birthplace may not be his >parent's birthplace.) > >Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> Seems like the options are (a) to use some standard form for lack of name (b) to use some personalized form. Which to use might depend upon how widely your database is distributed. If widely used it should probably be less personalized. My starting point would probably be that I am not likely to find the maiden name of a female except by luck or the data base of another - at least not prior to 1900. So I would use a consistent, recoognized method. However I don't share my data base except one on one and for a person's direct line. So I could personalize all I wish. Since we will never get out of this world alive I would recommend as much standardization as possible with deviations explined by the use of notes. That should not confuse anyone who doesn't start off confused. A female living with a male doesn't allow one to make observations unless the data is furnished. A female could be the wed or unwed mother or step-mother - or various other relationships depending on age differentials. And once you have more than 5,000 or so names it rarely matters unless it is direct line. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)