DBSIG: German Pork Butchers

[Histres]

All right Bob,

Let me come back to the Schluchterers again. It's right , I provided two of them, originating from Künzelsau (May you please add that?) and living in England (what mistakenly was put by your programme from my list into the birthplace section of your list, due to my inadequate listing).

But how does it come that a Ludwig Schluchterer, possibly provided by SwissGill, is listed four times under Nos. 1701-1704, although it is obviously one and the same person.

Additionally this Ludwig might be identical with or a brother of "my" Johann Heinrich Ludwig. Therefore I agree with Swiss Gill who said that it would be most useful to show also a person's parents' names if they are known.

I have also some doubts if the entries of the name Schweinemetzger can be correct, especially the forenames that are given seem absolutely impossible and might be a misreading or misunderstanding as "blutiger" and "blutigster" mean "bloody" and "bloodiest" in English.
I hope all these unexpected problems can be solved step by step so that we get a reliable and not much irritating database in the end.

Regards
Histres 

[Berlin-Bob]

Hi Histres,

from an earlier reply:

ps. I've added a family under 'S' but this is just to test various things.
Don't try and work out if you are related or not, 'cause I invented them all   

I constantly need to try out different features and aspects and find it best to have a couple of test records, so I don't change any other data. Once we are certain that everything is OK, I shall delete them. 

I think SwissGill may have added a few too many Schlucherers.  I haven't set up the "delete" function yet, but that will come.

Speaking generally now, the biggest problem with a project like this, is that it is impossible to plan every aspect in advance. I think now that we have a basis (1700 records) we can gradually work out what is needed to make this as useful as possible for as many users as possible.

In general we have enough data fields to show anything we want, but a tabular display will be difficult because of the amount of possible data for each person.
However, a field for parents of each person (visible in the table view) might be a good idea.

I think perhaps some of these problems - "who belongs to which family", "how can I be certain this is the right Ludwig, when there are several Ludwigs" will be easier to answer when I have implemented the planned link facility.
 

regards,
Bob

[SwissGill]

Hi Bob,

No, I didn't set up too many Schluchterers - I saw them all before I started to edit one.

Gill

[Berlin-Bob]

Hi All,

The Database for Special Interest Groups: German Pork Butchers is now 'live'. 

I will be "cleaning up" the database  where the conversion of the lists from from RichardFunk and Histres wasn't quite 1:1 and  I shall still be adding new features and improvements, so please keep the feedback coming.


Following up on the feedback comments, I've now added several new fields to the database records:

- Surname variations 1 and 2.
- Anglicised Surname and forename
- Father
- Mother

Selecting the surname will also consider surname variations and the anglicised surname (see example under 'P' ).

There is also a "delete" function (at the bottom of the 'edit' form) for deleting duplicate entries.

Not everybody lived in more than one town in the UK, so I have also re-formatted the table view, so that the three possible locations now appear in one line. This now allows room to display the anglicised surname too.

More to come, later

Bob

[Berlin-Bob]

Also, when you add a new person and click save, if you then look at the list of people in the main alphabetical selection, your username (e.g. Spidermonkey) doesn't show up in the last column.  You then need to edit the record, and move the tick box thingy back to "these are part of my family" (can't remember exact wording) even though that was the default setting when entering the data originally.  If you save then after making that edit, your username shows up on the index. 

Ooops !   
I've just corrected this error in the software: 
when adding a new record, the "Family Links" flag got deleted.

Family Links

x : I have links to this family
_ : I do not have links to this family

Sorry about that, but if anyone has been adding records,
please edit them to correct this.

@limehouse, I've corrected your records by hand.

@spidermonkey and SwissGill, I'm not sure if all your records are also "family links" or just submissions, so I'll ask you to do those yourselves.

regards,
Bob

[Berlin-Bob]

I've just changed the selection process, so that when you click on "page view" you retain the previous selection in the "table view".  This will help when examining several page views from a "table" of selections.

regards,
Bob

ps no more feedback ??
Everybody must be totally happy with it 

 http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/index.php?sig_code=GPB

[Bethgem]

I'll have some feedback, probably, when I finally get the time to enter all my relatives, in the Green family, onto the Database.

I shall be ages, I know, if I am allowed to enter them all. Or are we just to enter the Butchers and not all their children and families who did not take up the trade?

If we all enter the generations that followed, it will bring the records up to the last deceased person as we are not allowed to enter real names of the living.

I do not know of any more relatives going even further back in time. It's thanks to Histres that I have the ones he looked up for me and they were all farmers. Maybe they were also butchers, but I am happy to leave the search there.

I'll get round to doing the entering soon, I hope. I've taken a look at the Database and I'm sure it will be very good for everyone. Thanks a lot, Berlin-Bob. 

[0113vanny]

I am slowly entering ones I know of as I get time and liaising with Histres regarding the ones he has entered that I would like to edit.  It is time consuming but worthwhile.  I think we should only enter the migrants, ie not subsequent children.   it would go on for ever wouldn't it?   but that includes people not just who came over as pork butchers, but servants, assistants, and others!   even if they did not stay too (?) 

[Berlin-Bob]

"And for my next trick ..."

I am going to add some edit functions for creating links within texts.

Here is an example:



The text in the editor looks like this (the red numbers are just the numbers from the image):

Father: [id=1694]Blütiger Schweinmetzger[/id](1)
Mother: [id=1693]Adelheid Schweinmetz[/id](1)
Comments:
Freely-Invented test family

Cunigunda married [id=99]Fred Smith[/id](1) against the wishes of her parents. As they disowned her for this (there were some disputed rumours about a pork butcher's carving knife being brandished here) she and her husband moved to  [p]Bradford[/p](2).  More about this in [t=607068][/t](3) and [t=509347]replies #23-26[/t](4)

(1) are links to the page views for this person
(2) is a place link and selects every record where this place is mentioned
(3) is a link to a forum topic, without any other text
(4) is a link to a forum topic, with text (in this example, some reply numbers)

I have this running already on my test-system, but it hasn't been implemented on Rootschat yet, as I would like to hear your feedback first.

- For (1): can you think of any other fields where it would/could be useful ??

- For (2): same again

- For (3) and (4) OK so ?
and, as above, any other fields (perhaps "Sources" ?)

- can you think of any other items that would useful as links ?

regards,
Bob

 http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/dbsig/index.php?sig_code=GPB