DBSIG: German Pork Butchers in Britain - who can change it ??

[Berlin-Bob]

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

[arky101]

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

[Berlin-Bob]

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

[arky101]

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

[Berlin-Bob]

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

[arky101]

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?

  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.

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

[Berlin-Bob]

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 ??

[SwissGill]

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

[Berlin-Bob]

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