RootsChat.Com
General => Technical Help => Reference Library => Topic started by: Berlin-Bob on Friday 04 October 13 16:51 BST (UK)
-
Following my previous post (No. 487) I have been looking at the database, and there seem to be 3 entries for Alexander STEIN, which seem to be for the same man and could perhaps be combined. Also I can offer some additional information, but not being the original submitter, think I cannot do this - Histres, can you do this? :)
Name should be Christian Alexander STEIN, dob 19 January 1858, Kunzelsau, death 23 May 1934, Castleford, WRY. Parents: Johann Christof STEIN, dob 26 September 1819 Kunzelsau, death 6 November 1874, Occupation: Bookbinder. Susanna Sofie Margarethe BREITINGER dob 13 November 1820 Kunzelsau, death 18 October 1893 Kunzelsau.
Places of abode: 1 = Kunzelsau, 2 = Bradford WRY 1881 Census, working for STEEGE, 3 = 1882-1911 Carlton Street, Castleford, WRY, 4 = Monk Fryston, WRY, 5 = Leake Street, Castleford, WRY.
Comments: Photographs available for Christian Alexander STEIN, Margaret HAFFNER, Johann Christof STEIN, Susanna BREITINGER.
I would like to be listed as a Researcher for this family, but do not know how to do this. Am finding the website quite difficult to navigate initially, but hopefully will get the hang of it in time!
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help - Helen
Hi Helen,
I've added the details from records #809 and #810 to #811 and deleted the first two.
To become a "researcher" just look in the page view for Christian Alexander Stein and near the bottom of his information page, click on the "Add me to researchers" button.*
We have had (are having ?) a discussion about who can edit information
(see http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,613454 )
but this hasn't been resolved, so for now, just ask me or the submitter (as you have done here) and one of us can edit it for you.
regards,
Bob
*http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-quick-search.php?dbsig_num=1&letter=S&view=811
-
Thanks, Bob. No more time today, but will try and compile some add-ons for the Haffners tomorrow, and will try the Researcher link also. Going out to play now! Helen
-
Bob - Thanks for your editing of the Stein entry No. 811. I tried clicking on the Researcher button to enter my name, but all that comes up is a blank screen saying:
dbsig-num is not set
Can you interpret please? Playing out is too much fun, so the Haffners may have to wait until holiday over and back in the UK!
Helen
-
Hi Helen,
I think I know what the problem is - was ?
Enjoy your holiday, and then please try it again and let me know if it works.
regards,
Bob
-
Also I can offer some additional information, but not being the original submitter, think I cannot do this - Histres, can you do this? :)
Hello Helen,
I realize that you can offer much more data on the Steins than I can. You're a family member whereas I am only a researcher of the German pork butcher emigration movement as a whole. So my suggestion is: Save all the data that I submitted as long as they can be added to your information. Then begin a new entry for Alexander Stein. As soon as you have begun yours as a researcher, I will delete my entry to avoid a double designation. Should I come across new information, I will contact you by personal message that you can update your entry. Will that be ok for you?
Best wishes
Histres
-
Hello Bob
I do appreciate the fact that you are having discussions on who may or may not have access to the database to add / alter entries. However, during my searches for other and my own PBs, I frequently come across names, often mis-transcribed, but for me usually "nachvollziehbar". Sometimes I'm searching for someone, find him/her, and would like to add this to the database (quickest method) but not possible. My first port of call is obviously the PB database but, if I find the name but realise something could be added or altered, I'm stumped. This means I would have to save it to my PC. Here, it will remain until eternity maybe. If I'm run down by a bus here this will be lost for ever.
A temporary measure (in my mind) would be to start a thread for PB corrections? Here, one could note quickly maybe person one had found with corrections.
It would be the responsibility of those who have entered PBs to regularly read the thread and alter or maybe make contact with the finder. This way I can forget it and move on.
After you have all made up your minds on what you think is feasible, the thread could be deleted or integrated?
The database in my mind will otherwise become stalemate and this would be a sad outcome for your immense work in setting up the database and a sad day for PB descendants.
Gill
-
so if I am run over by a bus tomorrow, or even today, no one can change/add to what I have put into the database? a good point and I have no idea what the answer is. I look forward to some very ingenious answers!
-
so if I am run over by a bus tomorrow, or even today, no one can change/add to what I have put into the database? a good point and I have no idea what the answer is. I look forward to some very ingenious answers!
Hi Vanny
Don't take it too literally ;D
Gill
-
I do appreciate the fact that you are having discussions on who may or may not have access to the database to add / alter entries.
Hello all,
I also see the difficulties, when only one person has access to the database to add or alter entries.
Of course it would be the easiest way to open the entries for everybody to do any kind of changes ar add supplements. This would enable other persons to bring in their contributions as quickly as possible.
However, this procedure would open all entries to misuse. Anyone could goof around in other people's family data. Although I don't suspect anyone of doing this as we are all acting in concert, I think some kind of inhibition level should be there to be overcome, just some item of control.
Therefore SwissGill's idea points into the right direction. Why not introduce a field, in which supplements can be filled in by everybody and on the cover page it is indicated which number, name and submitter/researcher the new information refers to. This way every submitter can immediately see if there are some additional data he/she should insert. (I hope you understand what I mean despite my clumsy English :))
Histres
-
but what happens if a submitter leaves this earthly life? can anyone take over the family details?
-
Hi Vanny,
I think this question can be answered by Berlin Bob. I'm sure the data won't get lost (the Internet doesn't forget anything) and the moderator can create arrangements that descendants or other entitled people can get access.
Histres
-
We also had some discussions about this here:
DBSIG: German Pork Butchers
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=613454.0
without coming up with a satisfactory solution :(
Some ideas so far:
[A 'submitter' is someone who submits i.e. enters a record, regardless of whether s/he is actually researching this family.
'A researcher' is someone researching this family. The 'submitter' may or may not also be a 'researcher']
1) the 'submitter' "authorises" other 'researchers' to edit his submissions (Berlin-Bob)
2) topic with DBSIG corrections (SwissGill)
Topic could get unwieldy; needs an administrator to prune it after corrections have been made.
3) A comments/corrections field in the database where anybody can list corrections (Histres)
The submitter can then edit the relevant fields, and delete the correction note. A bit like a "post-it" note. I would suggest only allowing registered 'researchers' to add corrections and comments.
Following up on another idea from Histres ...
Suppose a record about Müller (#1234) has been submitted by someone who is not actually researching this name.
A 'researcher' now submits a record about this same person (#4321)
Comments could like these could also be added here
- "this is the same person as record #4321 , please only add comments there"
- "all data from this record has now been added to record #4321. Please delete this record"
- etc.
Feedback on the above, other ideas ??
Gruß,
Bob
-
1) the 'submitter' "authorises" other 'researchers' to edit his submissions (Berlin-Bob)
As a variation of this: anybody who adds themselves to a record as "researcher" can then edit the record. Or is this too open to abuse ? Is it better to stick to the original idea, that the submitters have to authorise access first, before others can change 'their' records?
-
2) topic with DBSIG corrections (SwissGill)
Topic could get unwieldy; needs an administrator to prune it after corrections have been made.
I fail to understand why, although I suggested it only as a temporary measure.
-
Hi Gill,
I was referring to this bit.
After you have all made up your minds on what you think is feasible, the thread could be deleted or integrated?
A corrections topic would be on-going and not necessarily chronological (comment about person A; correction about person A; comment about person B; Correction for preson B; etc, but would depend on how often comments are made, and how often the submitters read the topic. If the "completed" corrections aren't deleted, the topic would become very unwieldy, and after 24 hours, a moderator would have to edit the topic.
My favourite at the moment is
3) A comments/corrections field in the database where anybody can list corrections (Histres)
as this would be direct in the database.
Bob
-
Hi Bob
Everything clear now!
I think Histres' idea with a comments / corrections field would also be my favourite.
Gill
-
Sorry to butt in, but I've been reading both PB discussion topics with much interest.
Regarding this problem with corrections ... why the discussion? Other than the odd typo, there shouldn't be a need for corrections. If the database only contains referenced/verifiable facts, why should these need correcting or changing?
* That Claus Reincke was married in Dewsbury 1892 is a fact that will never need correction.
* That Claus Reincke is listed in the Leeds Directory 1896, and that Claus Rienke is listed in the Parish Registers 1895, are both facts, and even though you know that one of them is mis-spelt they should be written as two separate entries.
* That Gt Grandma says that Claus Reincke came from Gerabronn is not a fact whilst it remains unproven, and so has no place on the database.
Bryan.
-
Good point, but maybe the word "corrections" was the wrong one to use. As I understand it, there are several "submitters" who submit details of any pork butchers they find, and there are "researchers" who submit details of their families, and then there are some who recognise that one of the submitted entries is one of their ancestors and would like to add some details the original submitter didn't know. Or vice versa.
Perhaps "additions" or "additional details" would be a better description here.
regards,
Bob
-
Ummm ... I've now studied the database ... so after all Berlin-Bob's suggestions and options in those early posts, and his hard work since, we finish up with a simple database of PBs and their researchers rather than a database of PBs and as much info as can be gleaned about them. This confirmed my initial suspicion that, whilst folks wanted a database of PBs, they didn't want to give up their own research for public use.
After my conversations with RichardFunk last year, before the Rootschat discussion began, things looked promising, however I'm now disappointed that a) none of the researchers stepped up to take the role of compiler, and b) that new researchers will be able to find the PB name they are looking for on the internet but will have no sources to study other than those which the contributing researcher is prepared to give them.
It's a shame the PB database will have no referenced/verifiable facts for researchers to use, but I guess that's up to the current group of PB researchers.
Bryan.
-
Bryan,
I find your comments, offensive, to say the least.
I have never withheld information on my German pork butcher ancestors and have added as much information which I have found during my extensive searches in the Internet. I have a public tree on Ancestry.com where anyone can and does make use of my research.
There are hundreds of names on the database, wrongly spelt, also without any reference, etc. Who entered them? You tell me.
To suggest that people have not wished to make their findings public is unfair. If you have concrete information that this is so, then please make it known.
In the course of my research, I try to ascertain the origin of the German immigrants, some of which are not related to me. However, this helps other researchers to find the roots of their ancestors. The pork butchers I have entered have been seriously researched and I resent your comments that this is not so.
-
Sorry, SwissGill, I might have been a bit harsh and I certainly did not mean any offence to you personally, my comments are more general.
I am concerned that given the positive comments and ideas from a number of PB researchers at the start of the discussion process, not all are being implemented in the current database.
I don't doubt the accuracy of your research, but if you'll allow me to say so, please, I don't think it is being displayed as such by the design of the database. Histres, in #26 of the original DBSIG PB Topic, posted an image of sample entries that showed every fact referenced ... this is not being done on the database. My own Sugarbakers database has every entry referenced (though a few early ones now appear a bit vague) so that researchers can use both the entry and the original source for their work. As you implied, unreferenced work is a pain to researchers.
As to wrongly spelt names, if they are wrongly spelt in the original then they should stay wrongly spelt, or at least the wrong spellings acknowledged, otherwise they cannot be found in the original sources.
The PB database would appear to be more complex than that of Sugarbakers, but not because there's a great deal of difference in the facts it will hold. Pork Butchers is a collective, it's a repository for researchers' years of hard work, and it will become a very useful and well regarded source of reference for many researchers, but it has to get it right from the start ... I know this from my own experience.
Bryan
-
Hello Bryan
I didn't take it personally and you are right about not changing the transcriptions. I have made numerous "additions" on Ancestry but the transcribed name is always given, plus the alternative name, birthplace, etc. This is something very important to me. To find the records, the transcribed name is essential. However, the original name is the only one that can lead us to our ancestors, especially in Germany.
This was what disturbed me:
This confirmed my initial suspicion that, whilst folks wanted a database of PBs, they didn't want to give up their own research for public use.
I am sure that this isn't the case with the majority but, as you say you have studied the database, you will know that from the very start we had 1700 pork butchers in the database.
You also say that it has to be right from the beginning. For me it has always been too large. I would have preferred that we, as researchers, would enter own ancestors and let the database grow slowly. This is no reflection on the work which has been carried out but I find often find it bewildering.
Now, as you have openly given your opinions, would you feel up to offering some constructive advice?
No hard feelings :)
Gill
-
Thank you, SwissGill ...
For an occupational database to be credible every fact should be referenced and every entry should be owned.
I don't have the latter concern with my own database as it has a single compiler, however the PB database has multiple compilers, so every submitter must ensure their username accompanies every entry. For clarity of ownership I think the 'Researchers' column on the front page should be replaced by 'Submitters' ... there's already a box for 'Researchers' on the detail page. I would suggest that if there are entries on the current database that are not owned they should be deleted. If the unknown submitters find their entries missing they can simply re-enter them along with their username.
Every fact that is entered on the entry's detail page should have a reference. Rather than the vague 'Sources' line, there is plenty of room for a column to the right into which source/reference could be placed next to each 'fact'. If it's a census give the reference, a will give the PRO or Probate reference, an abode should have the directory/GRO cert/census, and if the best info to date comes from a letter from Granny, it should say so. I do wonder, as this database is very family-based, whether there's a place for ?? against uncertain family connections.
... and one more point, if I may ...
I have found that there is one serious omission on my database ... a narrow column far right for the month/year of addition of each entry to the database. This would help me trace back to references/notes/old emails when asked questions about the entry.
... and a techie point ... some text is not coding correctly on the final image, eg: ID1396. Maybe some general guidance is needed about this.
I hope this helps.
Bryan.
-
Has this died a premature death.? It would be a pity if it had.
-
Is nobody interested in this database?
Please let me know. What is the point of my searching further for pork butchers if this is not of interest?
-
I am truly disturbed that no one has posted on this thread lately.
It is not healthy to be left in uncertainty as to the outcome of the Pork Butchers' database.
I implore those who are "in the know", maybe to address a few words, whether good or bad.
No news is good news, one says, but in this case, I do not agree.
Please could at least one of you reply?
Gill
-
Hi Gill,
I've deliberately stayed out of this for a while to wait for feedback, but as you say, no one is responding.
To all:
The database is there "as is" for general use and will remain; this discussion is only about who is allowed to edit it and how. And, as further discussion point, a review of what you want to achieve with this database.
As Brian said, a multi-user database is harder to manage than a database designed and submitted by one person. Brian's sugar bakers database has only one line of info. for each person, with a source for that information.
As I have understood it, our goal has also been to provide a list of german pork butchers, but also to provide as much information as possible about each individual (with possibilities of establishing connections and relationships)
If sources are important, then we would need a way of "sourcing" every item entered for each person. Or you can expand each of the individual entry fields to provide the source (census, BMD, etc) of that particular piece of information. i.e. addresses "36 High Street, Bolton [1901 census]", "3 Sausage Lane, Leeds [Death cert.]" etc.
I personally have no particular link to German Pork Butchers, other than helping out with the database software, so I need your input about how you want to use the database.
regards,
Bob
-
I think it is about time that all the pork butcher descendants come forward and further what they think is important to put in the database.
No one is expecting anyone to give technical details. But Bob needs feedback. Whatever you feel would be important to register - then do so. Bob can work with this.
Haichem's success is exemplary. I found her on Ancestry, told her about Rootschat.com, she posted. Histres found her post and the answer is that she found her ancestors in Germany.
This doesn't need to be a "one-off".
We could all help each other but a certain amount of work is necessary.
Don't let this opportunity slide. It would be such a pity. There is no such "network" on the Internet as this.
Here we have a "community" and, a contact to Germany.
Please don't disappoint me.
-
Sorry Bob,
This thread was meant to be about "Who can change it"
Please forgive my ramifications and attend to the matter in hand.
Creeping back under my toadstool!!
Gill
-
Hi Gill,
No problems :)
- because "Who can change it?" also depends on what the goals of the database are.
So come back out from under your toadstool !
Bob
-
Hi Bob, I've come back from under my toadstool!!
I'm still waiting for answers - whether with constructive ideas how to further the database, or just willingness to support same.
Please, reply whether you are for or against the database and, if against, please give your reasons for changes.
Please, don't ignore this - it is good but could be better.
-
Hi Bob,
I am new to this forum. While I pride myself in being computer literate I am struggling to navigate the messaging system within Rootschat and the Pork Butcher forum specifically. Any pointers are appreciated.
I have benefited from the posting and database entries of Histres on Heinrich Freidrich Ebert and posted what I thought was a reply to his attention. I am not sure this happened as planned as it appears a new chat forum was created. Hopefully he will find it.
Anyways, I have found what I think will be additions to your Pork Butcher database and family connections between the Dorrmenz born Ebert family and the Weidner families, as well as the Gehringer family but need some guidance on how to best do this.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Welcome to RootsChat :)
I am not sure this happened as planned as it appears a new chat forum was created. Hopefully he will find it.
Seems to have worked out OK, your reply can be seen on the German Pork Butchers topic .
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=408853.0
This is an open forum and Histres is just one of the contributors there, so don't be surprised if other members also answer your queries :)
At the moment if you find members of your families in the database, you need to contact the contributor, by PM and they can add more details to the database. This topic here is a discussion about how we might improve on this, with - as a possibility - "Researchers" being able to add to records from other "Submitters". We still haven't reached a decision :(
regards,
Bob
-
Hello Bob,
Thanks for the welcome. Histres has been in contact and I am composing an answer.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions for additional data fields in the PB database but feel this is not the correct discussion forum. Do you have a discussion forum for this?
For what it is worth, I was a database man before I retired and your discussion is an age-old discussion. To ensure the integrity of a database it is necessary to control the input of the data to a limited number of people, otherwise a database gets "dirty" rather quickly.
I am in favour of a system that sees "research assistants" funnelling their input through the "researchers" for the additional process of verification. A timeline should be in place to ensure the extra information is either included as fact, included as probable, or rejected as unverifiable. The contacted researcher can decide if they have the time to process the input and if not forward the file to another researcher, advising the "research assistant".
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
I would like to make a couple of suggestions for additional data fields in the PB database but feel this is not the correct discussion forum. Do you have a discussion forum for this?
Here is a more general discussion topic for the GPB database.:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=613454.0
At the moment we have "Submitters" who submit data, and "Researchers" who are researching their family and links. Sometimes the "Researcher" is also the "Submitter". Perhaps we need a better name for "Researchers", because Histres (for example) is submitting lots of names and data he has researched, but is not actually researching his family..
regards,
Bob
-
Bob,
I am starting to get the hang of wondering around the PB database and concur with the "researcher" vs "Submitters" dilemma as I have and still do find it a bit confusing. I have added myself to the Researchers category for Heinrich Friedrich Ebert, but fail to see what this does for me as I cannot seem to add information. I presume it is locked by Histres as he is the creator of the DB entry. Am I correct?
It would be clearer to me if "Submitter" was renamed as ID Creator and Researcher renamed Research Submitters (Family Affiliated Submitters). Further, without impacting the "ID Creators" entries, if an additional data field entitled "Research Submitter Comments & Sources" for each researcher would be of interest, and allow Research Submitters to add their research details. The creator and/or you could then determine it's permanent inclusion.
Comments?
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
the main advantage of the "Researcher" label, can be seen in the "Quick search". I can immediately see who else is researching particular names. In your case, in the record for "Heinrich Friedrich Ebert" I can see a profile button and I can use this to see your profile, send you a message, etc.
But, in your particular case, you have also shown me an error in the database. If you have entered data in this database, then your name will also appear in the "Researchers" column, and clicking on your name will then show me (or any other interested person) which names in the the database you are researching.
http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-help.php?dbsig_num=1&show=gi#gi
I'll have a think about your further comments, and hopefully others will add their views, too.
regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
Wow, quick reply. I have gotten myself caught in a "If all else fails read the instructions" situation, and I appreciate the link that better explained the data fields. I think I get it now.
I applaud the efforts of you and others in creating this database and trying to keep it maintained in a fashion that protects the integrity of the entries and associated information.
So, how do I get information into the database that I hope others can make use of either for scholarly research or family research, without being a pain to or creating a work overload for the "Submitters"? I have 3 thoughts on the matter:
1. My previous suggestion of Family Research Submitters having a Comments/Sources data field.
2. I have thought of creating a Word document that emulates the data form I see on the screen and populate it with my data, facts and sources, and email this as an attachment to the "Submitter" to be added.
3. A hybred of option 2 that has an online form to fill in when the "Researcher" clicks on the Add or Edit buttons at the top of the database screen, that submits the form to the "Submitter".
The problem with option 2 & 3 is that if the "Submitter" is otherwise occupied, and/or possibly no longer monitoring the database, then the data may not be attended to. This is a generalized comment as I would like to say that all of the "Submitters" I have contacted have been timely & awesome in their replies.
Comments anyone ... Jim
-
While entering data into the database I noticed a quirk in the Comments area. If I do not insert links to other pork butchers, I can insert considerably more text. If I insert links I get limited to say 250-350 characters (well short of the 1000 possible) and my text is truncated. For now I am removing links so I can insert more text.
Is anyone else having this issue? Is there a workaround?
Each character counts as a character, regardles of whether it is within a link or not. No way around this at the moment. But keep adding your comments on the discussion
Topic: DBSIG: German Pork Butchers in Britain - who can change it ??
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=665952.0
Maybe I/we can think of other ways of presenting the information, which wil also get around this limitation. This problem hasn't cropped up till now, probably because very few people use the formatting and linking options.
regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
I did a little more research of my own. You are correct that each character you see on the page counts a 1, however unseen characters count for many more. I am attaching 3 images that will demonstrate what I see and what I think is happening. Image 1 - filename Glock No Links.jpg is a screen capture of the entry for ID:1953 Glock. Image 2 - Glock 2 Links.jpg is a screen capture after 2 links are made to other pork butchers. Image 3 - Glock 3 Links.jpg is a screen capture if 3 links are made.
Image 1 shows all text I have typed in, but has no links.
Image 2 shows that half of the text on the last line of comments disappears if 2 links are added.
Image 3 shows that all of the last comment line disappears if 3 links are added.
I did a character count in Word, and there are 719 characters in my text without links. While doing this I discovered that a CR/LF at the end of each line adds 9 characters to the total for that line or paragraph.
Displayed it looks like the text for a link, [id=xxxx][/id], is 14 characters, but in reality the linking (and all of it's associated formatting light blue highlighting etc) ends up using 135 characters. This was a math subtraction using the 1000 character limit, and subtracting the number of characters up to the point that the truncating occurred in image 2 (650 characters), with a result of 350 characters used to insert 2 links.
As the formatting and linking are needed (at least I think so) I believe the only option will be to increase the field size of the comments to say 2000 characters with a bracketed caution that each link uses 135 of your character limit. If increasing beyond 1000 characters is difficult, then how about a second Comments field?
Hope this helps with the ID of the issue and to a resolution.
Jim
-
Displayed it looks like the text for a link, [id=xxxx][/id], is 14 characters, but in reality the linking (and all of it's associated formatting light blue highlighting etc) ends up using 135 characters.
The "light blue highlighting" comes "naturally, because it's a link. but otherwise, you are correct.
I have used BBC-Codes for the formatting, which is then converted in the program to HTML. The simple formatting codes (the same codes are used here in the forum) are the same number of characters in HTML, but the links and ID-numbers are simply using the BBC-code idea and they "translate" to more characters in HTML.
http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-help.php?dbsig_num=1&show=ar#ar
I'll have a think about increasing the size, but first of all, I'd like to re-think the page view. One of the criticisms (single vs. multiple users) was about the source(s). Perhaps the page needs rediesigning, so that sources for individual items can be entered; then multiple users can add sources for their data, too.
regards,
Bob
-
Hey Bob,
To be honest, I like what is there already and have no real problem with the page view. Sure, it was a bit challenging to input my 1st entry, but now that I have added a 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... 7th it all seems pretty straightforward. I do subscribe to the Keep It Simple theory and avoid major overhauls.
I would like to use links to other PBs as I think it is a neat way to show linkages between the pork butchers of this area, and provides researchers with a valuable tool to get the "connections". If I cannot, then a textual reference will suffice. Not everyone will make the effort though, either because they are not interested, or some find it more difficult to "code" the link ... all you can do is show them how ... which you have done in the instructions. I think allowing a higher character limit is the easier thing to do, in my opinion.
Anyone wanting a more personal instruction on doing this is free to post a message asking me for help, through the PM system. I hope that others that know how to do it will post their willingness as well.
As for sources, perhaps this field is redundant for listing all source information. Certainly, a 40 character limit prevents the listing of all sources, so I make ample use of the Notes & Comments areas to annotate my sources right beside the information they refer to. As I am interpreting other entries it seems that the source is frequently used to identify the German connection (parish records, Alien Arrival records) that link the person from Germany to England. This is a really good use of the field. Perhaps just a rename to German-England Linkage Source?
;D The word for today is "LINK". Of course I like the word link ... it seems to fit in well with my German Pork Butcher - Rueben Winder - Sausage Linker heritage. ;D
Permission to edit an existing entry is an issue, but I would rather have a more locked down system with some duplicates, over a wide open free-for-all that sees the integrity of the database falter and have it fall into disuse because of this. It is easier to reconcile duplicate entries than to correct multiple inputs from multiple in-putters.
I ramble ... time to post this puppy!
Jim
-
Hi All,
Permission to edit an existing entry is an issue, but I would rather have a more locked down system with some duplicates, over a wide open free-for-all that sees the integrity of the database falter and have it fall into disuse because of this. It is easier to reconcile duplicate entries than to correct multiple inputs from multiple in-putters.
After a lot of thought, and some more (PM) input from others I have decided to try out a "Edit allowed by request" system. In other words, the 'wannabe Editor' has to convince the Submitter that his edits are relevant; and that s/he can be trusted not to spoil the 'data integrity'.
Having made the decision, I then contacted the Easter Bunny, who got busy and laid a few eggs:
If you look in the page view of any entry, you will now see a new input-button
"Request to Edit"
Click on this and send the Submitter a PM with details of the the record(s) you wish to edit. (i.e. reasons why !)
S/he can then go to 'Edit record' and in each record click on the new button "Allow to Edit" to allow the 'wannabe Editor' to also edit the record(s).
I am trying to figure out a way of sending a PM automatically ("XYZ has requested to edit a record you have submitted."), but I can't do it at the moment.
Enjoy :)
Bob
ps.
If this doesn't work out, then we can try out the idea of just having an input box where people can add comments about records but only the submitter can still edit the record.
Or maybe, we should include that one anyway, as some members may only wish to add a short comment or correction ??
-
Dear Bob and PB friends
Actually, this is what I have been doing up to now. I contacted the submitter by PM, delivered my details, and, depending on whether h/she had more details than I or not, this was altered or the person deleted by the submitter and/or re-submitted by me.
I like the idea of a box to put in additions, etc. best of all.
BTW why were the foregoing discussions by PM? Just being nosy but I thought this would be an open discussion?
Gill
-
Hi Gill,
the PM-trafic was mainly a request to change the "Submitter" so that someone else could then edit the data. I did this for one record, but as it then turned out they wanted to edit several more records I then decided to do the changes mentioned above.
regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
I just used the new Request to Edit button in PB entry Karl Buck and as far as I can tell nothing happened after clicking the button. Did I misread your instructions, or should a PM message session have appeared?
As you know, limeshouse79 has sent me detailed additions/edits for all of their entries as I offered to assist with their data entry (a total of 29 PBs). When done limehouse79's entries will be well fleshed out with details and will be much more useful to all researchers using the PB database.
Hi SwissGill ... I am the culprit when Berlin-Bob indicated a certain someone requested edit arrangements for a large volume! My intentions are good and honorable ;D ... As for edits, as long as submitters cooperate, I would actually prefer the more cautious path that still required submitter approval for edits over extra data fields for researcher comments. The approval process requires a level of proofing of the edits & additions which have value in protecting the integrity of the database. Verification of research is a good thing.
Arky101
-
Hi Jim,
Click on this and send the Submitter a PM with details of the the record(s) you wish to edit. (i.e. reasons why !)
S/he can then 'edit' the record(s) and click on the new button "Allow to Edit"
I am trying to figure out a way of sending a PM automatically ("XYZ has requested to edit a record you have submitted."), but I can't do it at the moment.
You need to send the Submitter a PM, so s/he can allow you to edit.
Maybe "Allow to edit" should read "allow 'wannabe Editor' to Edit"
I've edited the text - hopefully this now clearer:
S/he can then go to 'Edit record' and in each record click on the new button "Allow to Edit" to allow the 'wannabe Editor' to also edit this record.
I've now thought of a possible method of opening a PM window when you click on "Request to Edit" (still needs testing), but I still don't know how to create a text within the window and send it automatically.
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
Just to clarify how I understand the process:
1. It is the Submitter (ie: the original creator of the PB record) that uses the Allow to Edit button.
2. An Allow to Edit button will appear each time an additional Researcher is added to a particular PB, so that the submitter will see multiple Allow to Edit buttons if there are multiple researchers attached to that PB record.
3. A Researcher must add themself to each PB record that they are wishing to get editing priveledges.
Am I correct in the process?
Also, how does a Submitter turn off the allow to edit should they no longer wish a Researcher to edit a PB record?
Arky101
-
1. It is the Submitter (ie: the original creator of the PB record) that uses the Allow to Edit button.
2. An Allow to Edit button will appear each time an additional Researcher is added to a particular PB, so that the submitter will see multiple Allow to Edit buttons if there are multiple researchers attached to that PB record.
3. A Researcher must add themself to each PB record that they are wishing to get editing priveledges.
Am I correct in the process?
Spot on :)
Also, how does a Submitter turn off the allow to edit should they no longer wish a Researcher to edit a PB record?
Once someone has been allowed to edit, the submitter will see a second button: "Remove editor", where the editor(s) can then be removed.
Bob
-
Jim, I am not worried by your PMs. What I would have liked is an open discussion so that all PB descendants could partake. Whether this would have happened, or not, I hesitate to guess.
What I would like is Histres' idea of a box where one could place a short message, i.e. the actual birth place in Germany - the most important factor - in my opinion. Is this still an option?? It stands to reason that one would give details to verify this.
As for a "free-for-all", I think we are all responsible adults and this would not be an issue.
If nothing more transpires, I will maintain my original method of contacting the descendant and discussing the information I have found. I do not only research for my own tree, I research descendants of the Hohenlohe Region and do not just "root around".
I admit it is difficult, especially, for Bob, as nobody seems inclined to offer an opinion but between computer experts and users there is often a very wide gap that should be consulted and, obviously, if nothing forthcoming then, the computer experts have no choice but to go ahead with their ideas.
Gill
-
I have now added some instructions for "Request to Edit", "Allow to Edit" and "Remove Editor" to the Help-pages:
Request to Edit:
Quick Search: http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-help.php?dbsig_num=1&show=qs#qs
Add Editor, Remove Editor:
Edit record: http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-help.php?dbsig_num=1&show=er#er
Please let me know here if it is understandable.
regards,
Bob
-
Hi Berlin-Bob,
I have followed the instruction links, and the Request to Edit button is identified and located, but neither of the instruction links indicate where to find the Allow to Edit or Remove Editor button. I think that you previously indicated only the "Submitter" sees the Allow to Edit or Remove Editor buttons, so as the "Researcher" I am unable to guide limehouse79 to the location of these buttons.
I do have a question. What exactly does the Request to Edit button do? Does it notify you, the administrator, that additional people want to edit a record? I guess my question/concern is that "Researchers" see nothing happen when the button is clicked, which can confuse the user. I do know that I did expect something to happen or change when I clicked on the button. If there is a definitive purpose for the button could I suggest a brief message be posted after clicking the button that tells the user what just happened and what they need to do next?
Thanks for continuing to work on these changes. cheers ... arky101
-
Hi Berlin-Bob
Arky101 has very kindly said he will enter some data for me on my 'interests' on the PB database. Reading the helpful hints re this, could you confirm that it is Arky101 who has to request me to allow him to do this, as I can't see how I can confirm that I am happy for him to update my names from my side of the database.
Limehouse79
-
Hi Arky,
I do have a question. What exactly does the Request to Edit button do?
Clicking on the "Request to Edit" button automatically causes the user's name to be entered in a list which the submitter should then see, when they edit the record.
The instruction links are
1) Help page for "Quick search" and
2) Help page for "Edit a record"
I've edited my previous post to reflect this.
If there is a definitive purpose for the button could I suggest a brief message be posted after clicking the button that tells the user what just happened and what they need to do next?
Yes, I agree: I'll add some text ...(but not right now)
Hi Limehouse,
If arky101 has made a "request to edit" then you should see the name 'arky101' in the drop-down list of people who have requested editing facilities.
Conversely, if you see the user name 'arky101' in the "Add editor" list, then it can only be here, because arky101 (and no one else) has clicked on "Request to Edit".
Bob
-
If there is a definitive purpose for the button could I suggest a brief message be posted after clicking the button that tells the user what just happened and what they need to do next?
Yes, I agree: I'll add some text ...(but not right now)
Now added: Once you have clicked on the "Request to Edit" button you will only see this text:
[You have made a request to edit this record.]
(Sorry, but there is no automatic notification.
Please inform the Submitter by PM )
Bob
-
I'm adding a comment from a PM here, as it is also a general question:
However, I reviewed my additions today and noticed that all of my CR/LF are gone and the information is all "shmucked" together and more difficult to read. Do you know what has happened? I did have the information nicely laid out previously.
Is this happening to others ?
If so, are you using Windows or Linux ?
One thought that occurs to me is that the 2 operating systems handle 'Newlines' differently.
regards,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
I use Windows 7.0.
Just to clarify, the record and my edits were OK a couple of weeks ago. The database displayed my information as I had typed it and formatted it. It was only last week that I noticed the change and the absence of CR/LFs from my formatting. This "reformatting" seemed to occur around the same time of our discussions about the 1000 character limit on the Comments field, the number of characters used by creating links to other PBs, and the increase of 1000 characters to 1200 characters. Hope this extra info helps diagnosis.
arky101
-
Hi Bob,
Me again regarding the CR/LF issue. I think the problem has only occurred with the 1 record you gave me edit privileges for ... PB:1726, RATHMANN, Christian. I checked the PB records I created as "Submitter" and the formatting is still as I entered it for these.
I suggest this may be a one off "Voodoo Magic" occurrence. I will do a "Request to Edit" to limehouse79 for this record and reformat the text. We can then watch if it is perhaps an unexpected "feature" of "Researcher" vs "Submitter" edits.
When I was working in IT I had a quote posted on my white board as a reminder to programmers and data analysts ... "Nothing is foolproof, as fools are so ingenious" ;D In other words, who knows what combination of keystrokes and mouse clicks were used to get me from formatted to un-formulated ... perhaps the easiest task is to let me reformat the text, keep an eye on it, and move on.
arky101
-
"Nothing is foolproof, as fools are so ingenious"
Right on !!
I was translating manually to HTML newlines, but I'm now using the nl2br() function,
in the hopes that that will pick up on Windows/Linux differences.
I'll leave it at that for now and wait and see what happens.
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
I have a request. I am now successfully assisting limehouse79 edit and add info for their PB records. Once I enter the info I like to flip back to the actual display record to proof my work and formatting.
In the Edit display screen with the listing of PBs one can edit, would it be possible to get the record display icon embedded to the left of the PB name to more easily go to this display with a single click? Right now I go back to Quick Search, select the letter, find the PB, and then click on the icon to display the record. Once I proof it, if I need to make changes (I usually need to), I then must select Edit, display my PB edit list, and start the process over again ....
Any chance this is a quick fix or addition?
Arky101
-
Hi Arky,
I'll look into it.
regards,
Bob
-
New input field: Readers Comments
In the previous discussion we were presented with two points of view concerning changes to the database.
1) the submitter should allow selected users to edit existing records.
2) users should be able to add comments, which the submitter can then integrate in the record.
After programming the first variation, I have now decided to try out the second variation, too.
Logged-on users can now add their comments to individual records in the "Page view" (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/dbsig-help.php?dbsig_num=1&show=gi#gi) and submitters can then move all or parts of these comments to the appropriate data field in their records (and delete the original 'reader's comment').
Please note that there is no automatic notification of comments: if you have added a comment, please send the submitter a comment to let him know.
Some may say, "but then you can send the comment in a PM and so you don't need this field.", but maybe it's easier this way for some. We'll see how it goes. If this variation results in spam or unsuitable comments, I can always delete it again.
Enjoy,
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
I have a request. I am now successfully assisting limehouse79 edit and add info for their PB records. Once I enter the info I like to flip back to the actual display record to proof my work and formatting.
In the Edit display screen with the listing of PBs one can edit, would it be possible to get the record display icon embedded to the left of the PB name to more easily go to this display with a single click? Right now I go back to Quick Search, select the letter, find the PB, and then click on the icon to display the record. Once I proof it, if I need to make changes (I usually need to), I then must select Edit, display my PB edit list, and start the process over again ....
Any chance this is a quick fix or addition?
Arky101
Hi Arky,
it's a bit complicated, but an easier solution might be to add a "preview" button to the input form, so that the page view is shown, and then the edit form again.
Would this help ?
regards,
Bob