Terry Reigel wrote, in part: > I suspect this practice raises havoc with the place index, which is one reason > I don't use it. Terry, The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single entry in the master place index. If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. John

John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem can be handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, say? He'd be able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would see the place without Detail as the same as the same place with a Detail? Rick Van Dusen On 9/7/2015 4:28 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: : : : > The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the > TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) > data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then > Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in > tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. > > For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same > values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is > limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the > same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single > entry in the master place index. > > If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master > place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. > > John

Rick Van Dusen wrote: > John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem > can be handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, > say? He'd be able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would > see the place without Detail as the same as the same place with a > Detail? Rick, No, I don't think so, but perhaps I have misread this thread. The subject refers to the place index, but John's question was about Second Site's "Full, then Short" place formatting option. That option applies to place formatting when SS is processing names and events as part of creating person page entries, and the option only affects multiple use of the _exact place record_ used by one or more events. The place index is different. SS adds a place index to the site if the user adds a Master Place Index User Item to the site configuration. The places shown in the index are collapsed the way I (briefly) described in my last reply: places that have the same values in the place levels included in the index (configurable) will be indexed as a single place. See: Full, then Short: http://ss.johncardinal.com/secplaces.htm#placeformat Place Index: http://ss.johncardinal.com/placeindex.htm#grouping John

On 9/7/2015 7:28 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: > The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the > TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) > data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then > Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in > tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. John, Yes, that one I understand. So if there are two or more different details, each is treated separately. Or, if L4 is omitted in some cases and included in others, they are treated separately. Both of these occur often in my data, producing results I don't care for if I use the Full, then Short option. So I manage my place levels manually to get them to appear in narratives as I prefer. > For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same > values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is > limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the > same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single > entry in the master place index. > > If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master > place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. To tell the truth I've not tried the place index, mainly because I've not though it is useful. Others of course obviously disagree on that. The reason I suggested my practices with place would adversely impact the index is my frequent omission of L4 to improve readability. As I understand the resulting index it would produce separate listings of most cities, one with and the other without the county, which I see as undesireable. I don't regard that as any fault with the index but rather an incompatibility between my method and any automatically produced index. Terry