[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
paf-digest V2000 #13
paf-digest Friday, February 18 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 013
In this issue:
Re: [PAF] The line between paranoia and privacy
[PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
[PAF] pointer's
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the PAF
or PAF-Digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:48:52 -0500
From: "Kenneth Lary-Jr" <klary-jr@hannaford.com>
Subject: Re: [PAF] The line between paranoia and privacy
You touched on something that is important to me. I apologize in advance for
the length.
In my opinion, you should try to discuss the issue with the submitter again and
try to get their okay to, at the very least, be able to print the information
that is already part of the public domain. You should be able to do this anyway
without their okay, but it would be good to get it. As for the rest of the
data:
I differentiate between publishing a genealogy in a physical book (what you are
doing) and placing data on a web site or something else that can be accessed
electronically over the Internet. If someone wants to use personal information
to falsify an ID there are much easier ways to do it than to go to a library,
find a genealogy that has current data on a living person, and then use it for
the ID. It is much easier to just gather information that is already available
over the Internet and falsify IDs that way.
I would not present data on living people on the Internet. No ifs, ands, or
buts. A printed genealogy, however, is a different matter. It is supposed to
be a printed record of the family; one that can be handed down to the next
generation so they can learn their history. Purposely leaving information out
of it is a really bad move in my opinion.
I published a genealogy in 1999. I submitted the manuscript in May of 1999 and
I had births all the way up to April of 1999 in it. I wanted to make the book
as complete as possible.
Confession: I did have one place that I did not present something. I was told,
in confidence, that a father of a person was not their real father; that their
mother had a boyfriend who was the real father. All the parents in the family
knew this (including the supposed father.) About the only person who did not
know was the 18 year old "child." Since this man was not aware that the person
he thought was his father was really his step-father (no adoption had been
performed either), I was asked to not put that in the book.
I wrestled with this for quite a while because I know that one reason to follow
genealogical lines is to track genetic illnesses that go from generation to
generation. By reporting that a step-father was the real father, I would be
listing incorrect information that could potentially mask a health problem that
the child could have down the road. After much thought, I decided that I would
agree to go along with the "adults" in this family and not list the true father.
Frankly, the situation still bothers me. Mostly I could not believe that in
this day and age, people would still lie to their children about their
parentage, while telling everyone else the truth. At some point, someone is
going to slip and the child will find out that his parents have lied to him for
almost 20 years. I suspect the fallout from that will be a lot worse than if
they had told the son when he was little that "daddy" was still "daddy", but
that he had a blood father. That is what my sister did with her son. He grew
up knowing that the man who raised him ( and who adopted him) was his father by
any definition except genetics.
If you are worried about people not liking something that you put in the book
about them, I used to have one question I used to ask myself, "Did this actually
happen?" If the answer was yes, then I had no problems including it in the
book. I had an aunt who did not want to see all of her marriages in the book.
I just asked her if she really did marry them (which she did.) My argument was
that if she didn't want people to know she had been married four times then she
shouldn't have gotten married four times. The time to worry about what people
would think was before she got married for the fourth time, not 15 years later
when a genealogy is being published. To quote (someone who I am drawing a blank
on), "Facts is facts."
If you are going to start censoring information on living people, why not do it
for dead people, too? If someone died young, I always tried to list the cause
of death because of the aforementioned tracking of genetic diseases. If the
person died by accident, or by suicide, I included this so that people would
know that this person was not necessarily a carrier of breast cancer, for
instance. Their early death was not due to "natural causes." Some people may
have been upset that I listed suicides, since it can be considered a sin.
Again, if it happened, it happened. Most of these cases were matters of the
public domain anyway since newspaper articles had been written about the
suicides.
In your situation, I would go back to the submitter and do everything I could to
convince them to let you use all of the data. Are they trying to say that when
they gathered this information from people they did not ask them if it was okay
to someday publish it? If so, that was their oversight, not yours. Now they do
not want to bother to contact these people. They should be willing to correct
their mistake. You, and future readers of your book, should not have to pay for
it. I always let people know when I am asking them questions that it will
probably end up in a published genealogy, but that it will never appear on the
Internet while they are alive. If I gathered the information from some other
source (this would include the information you got from the previously published
book) then it is a matter of the public record and there is no reason why you
should not use it.
In short (ha!) you have to decide who you are placing the information in the
genealogy for. Is it for the current family who may be embarrassed about some
facts, or is it for posterity so that someone can look at your book and know
that they can trust the facts that you have included to not only be correct, but
also to be as complete as you could make them. I chose the latter. I would
like to shake the hand of every person who did genealogies in the 1800's that I
used to help bridge gaps between records. If they had not also made this
decision to include up to date information, I would probably still be haplessly
searching for records to make connections.
Kenneth "Chip" Lary
Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org> on 02/15/72 03:38:55 PM
Please respond to paf@innernet.org
To: paf-list <paf@innernet.org>
cc: (bcc: Kenneth Lary-Jr/Info Tech/Corp/HBC)
Subject: [PAF] The line between paranoia and privacy
Good grief, here she is AGAIN.
I received some information for the massive family database, with the
request that it be suppressed from print because the individuals were
still living and there too many for the sbumitter to try to contact 'em all.
OK, I was still trying to figure out how to keep track of these folks
without putting them where they belong, when I noticed that several of
them were already in the database. They got in there because they had
been printed in the 1987 edition. I have NO way of knowing who sent them
in in 1987 and the man most likely to know is dead (which is why he's not
doing the 2000 edition -g-).
It doesn't make *sense* to delete material already in print, but then
again, I did say I would honor the request.
I have already alerted the submitter that I was finding some of the
unusual names in the data, but when I told her that, I had no idea how
extensive the overlap was. Now I do. :(
Somebody reassure me that I'm not forswearing myself by leaving this
stuff in.
Cheryl
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:52:30 -0700
From: "John Blair" <jcblair@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF77CC.AA48E180
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I ran a check of my PAF files in PAF 4.0.4.16 and it showed
that I had 9 errors. The following is a copy of the error
report showing the items in error:
Checking Other Names:
87 records.
Name 168050 greater pointer (169165) is not greater.
Name 168252 less pointer (169369) is not less.
Name 168909 greater pointer (168927) is not greater.
Name 169186 greater pointer (170160) is not greater.
Name 169296 greater pointer (169720) is not greater.
Name 169338 less pointer (169587) is not less.
Name 169741 greater pointer (170239) is not greater.
Name 170044 greater pointer (170065) is not greater.
Name 170239 less pointer (170257) is not less.
I have read all the instructions I can find, but found
nothing to explain the problem. When I run a check on the
same file in PAF 3.01m it shows no errors. I know PAF 4+
checks more things than 3 does.
I assume that the first 3 numbers in each group are Rin #s,
but have no idea what the others are. Assuming the first 3
numbers are Rins then the problem involves two married
couples, each one has a mans complete name and only a first
name for the wife because I do not know their maiden names.
Should I use their married names for the last name?
I really can't see any problem with them, but there must be
something or the program wouldn't kick them out. I can
probably use the repair in 4.0.4.16 to correct them, but
don't want to loose any data. I would really like to know
what is wrong so I don't do it again.
Thanks much, John
- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF77CC.AA48E180
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV>I ran a check of my PAF files in PAF 4.0.4.16 and it showed that I =
had 9=20
errors. The following is a copy of the error report showing the items in =
error:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Checking Other Names:<BR>87 records.<BR>Name 168050 greater pointer =
(169165) is not greater.<BR>Name 168252 less pointer (169369) is not=20
less.<BR>Name 168909 greater pointer (168927) is not greater.<BR>Name =
169186=20
greater pointer (170160) is not greater.<BR>Name 169296 greater pointer =
(169720)=20
is not greater.<BR>Name 169338 less pointer (169587) is not =
less.<BR>Name 169741=20
greater pointer (170239) is not greater.<BR>Name 170044 greater pointer =
(170065)=20
is not greater.<BR>Name 170239 less pointer (170257) is not less.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have read all the instructions I can find, but found nothing to =
explain=20
the problem. When I run a check on the same file in PAF 3.01m it shows =
no=20
errors. I know PAF 4+ checks more things than 3 does. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I assume that the first 3 numbers in each group are Rin #s, but =
have no=20
idea what the others are. Assuming the first 3 numbers are Rins then the =
problem=20
involves two married couples, each one has a mans complete name and only =
a first=20
name for the wife because I do not know their maiden names. Should I use =
their=20
married names for the last name?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I really can't see any problem with them, but there must be =
something or=20
the program wouldn't kick them out. I can probably use the repair in =
4.0.4.16 to=20
correct them, but don't want to loose any data. I would really like to =
know what=20
is wrong so I don't do it again.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks much, John</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF77CC.AA48E180--
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:50:50 -0800
From: Jack Chandler <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
At 03:52 PM 2/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I ran a check of my PAF files in PAF 4.0.4.16 and it showed that I had 9
>errors. The following is a copy of the error report showing the items in error:
>
>Checking Other Names:
>87 records.
>Name 168050 greater pointer (169165) is not greater.
>Name 168252 less pointer (169369) is not less.
>Name 168909 greater pointer (168927) is not greater.
>Name 169186 greater pointer (170160) is not greater.
>Name 169296 greater pointer (169720) is not greater.
>Name 169338 less pointer (169587) is not less.
>Name 169741 greater pointer (170239) is not greater.
>Name 170044 greater pointer (170065) is not greater.
>Name 170239 less pointer (170257) is not less.
I appears to me that these are errors in that portion of the data file
*.PAF that handles the unique names.
These names are sorted alphabetically in a binary name tree. The first
name, by default, in the tree is 'NAME'
"NAME" would be in name record 1. The next open name record would be
2. The next name entered would be compared alphabetically to "NAME" . It
would be entered in record 2. If the new name were LOWER than "NAME"
alphabetically, the pointer to the new name, i.e. record 2, would be
entered in the left pointer bytes of
the "NAME" entry, i.e., record 1. If it were HIGHER, then the pointer
would be placed in the right pointer bytes
of record 1.
Each new name entered follows up the name tree in this fashion until it
finds an empty record to be recorded in. What your results appears to mean
to me is that the name that is in the greater pointer of record 169186 is
in fact NOT greater than the name in record 169186.
This should not cause any major problems with operation of the database
with the exception of SEARCHES.
All of these name record numbers are also logged as pointers in another
file for normal operations.
In earlier versions of PAF there were options to 'rebuild' the name tree
and properly organize the misplaced names. I see no reason why allowing
PAF4.0 to correct these errors could cause any problems with the database.
Now, keep in mind that this may not be entirely correct as I am not greatly
acquainted with the PAF4.0 data system. However, I would not hesitate to
make a backup of the database, then allow PAF4.0 to make its attempt to
correct these problems.
Jack <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:00:44 +0000
From: "Alice Harris" <akh@molalla.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Thank you Jack for the explaination of the checking other names error.
At least I know a little bit about what the problem is. I do find it
interesting that both John's and my check showed 9 errors. His showed 87
records, mine showed 279 but both had 9 errors.
I suppose it is just coincidence but strange to me.
I had run my check in 4.0.3.23. I will download 4.0.4 before I try to
correct mine. I tried during the busy evening hours and it would have
take 1 hr 45 min. So I will try early in the morning when the site is
not so busy.
> At 03:52 PM 2/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >I ran a check of my PAF files in PAF 4.0.4.16 and it showed that I had 9
> >errors. The following is a copy of the error report showing the items in error:
> >
> >Checking Other Names:
> >87 records.
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:05:35 -0700
From: "John Blair" <jcblair@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Jack:
Thanks very much for your kind help. John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Chandler <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
To: <paf@innernet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
| At 03:52 PM 2/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
| >I ran a check of my PAF files in PAF 4.0.4.16 and it
showed that I had 9
| >errors. The following is a copy of the error report
showing the items in error:
| >
| >Checking Other Names:
| >87 records.
| >Name 168050 greater pointer (169165) is not greater.
| >Name 168252 less pointer (169369) is not less.
| >Name 168909 greater pointer (168927) is not greater.
| >Name 169186 greater pointer (170160) is not greater.
| >Name 169296 greater pointer (169720) is not greater.
| >Name 169338 less pointer (169587) is not less.
| >Name 169741 greater pointer (170239) is not greater.
| >Name 170044 greater pointer (170065) is not greater.
| >Name 170239 less pointer (170257) is not less.
|
| I appears to me that these are errors in that portion of
the data file
| *.PAF that handles the unique names.
| These names are sorted alphabetically in a binary name
tree. The first
| name, by default, in the tree is 'NAME'
| "NAME" would be in name record 1. The next open name
record would be
| 2. The next name entered would be compared alphabetically
to "NAME" . It
| would be entered in record 2. If the new name were LOWER
than "NAME"
| alphabetically, the pointer to the new name, i.e. record
2, would be
| entered in the left pointer bytes of
| the "NAME" entry, i.e., record 1. If it were HIGHER,
then the pointer
| would be placed in the right pointer bytes
| of record 1.
|
| Each new name entered follows up the name tree in this
fashion until it
| finds an empty record to be recorded in. What your
results appears to mean
| to me is that the name that is in the greater pointer of
record 169186 is
| in fact NOT greater than the name in record 169186.
|
| This should not cause any major problems with operation of
the database
| with the exception of SEARCHES.
| All of these name record numbers are also logged as
pointers in another
| file for normal operations.
|
| In earlier versions of PAF there were options to 'rebuild'
the name tree
| and properly organize the misplaced names. I see no
reason why allowing
| PAF4.0 to correct these errors could cause any problems
with the database.
|
| Now, keep in mind that this may not be entirely correct as
I am not greatly
| acquainted with the PAF4.0 data system. However, I would
not hesitate to
| make a backup of the database, then allow PAF4.0 to make
its attempt to
| correct these problems.
|
| Jack <jackchandler@worldnet.att.net>
|
============================================================
================
| For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please
contact
| ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
|
============================================================
================
|
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1972 14:18:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alice Harris wrote:
> Thank you Jack for the explaination of the checking other names error.
> At least I know a little bit about what the problem is. I do find it
> interesting that both John's and my check showed 9 errors. His showed 87
> records, mine showed 279 but both had 9 errors.
>
> I suppose it is just coincidence but strange to me.
Maybe the program only reports the first 9 errors. I've had different
programs that had different tolerance levels -- one would report EVERY
error, all 12,000 of 'em; one would report each error once only; one
would report ALL of certain errors, none of certain other errors; and
I've got a comm program what will flat disconnect me after 12 consecutive
d/l errors...not just abort the d/l, but drop my carrier!
So, I guess, the question is, has anyone had an error report of more than
9 errors?
Cheryl
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:43:49 EST
From: Mlharline@aol.com
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
In a message dated 2/15/00 10:06:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, akh@molalla.net
writes:
>
> I had run my check in 4.0.3.23. I will download 4.0.4 before I try to
> correct mine. I tried during the busy evening hours and it would have
> take 1 hr 45 min. So I will try early in the morning when the site is
> not so busy.
>
My experience has been that the download always shows more than 1 hour when
it first starts, but in a very short while it changes to less than an hour,
and then quite quickly to less than 45 minutes and hasn't taken more than
about 25 minutes. Maybe this is just my modem -- which is one of the fastest
ones.
Mary Lou
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:03:33 -0700
From: "Ardean" <kbooth61@cybertrails.com>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Today I was testing our new Network which I had changed the number of
generations that could be downloaded from 13 to 100. This created a GEDCOM
of over 33,000 people in 15 minutes. So I than imported it into the new PAF
4.0.4 and did a Check/repair on that file. There were over 200 errors that
were found and fixed. So PAF 4.0.4 does go beyond 9 errors.
I hope this helps.
Ardean
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
To: <paf@innernet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 1972 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alice Harris wrote:
>
> > Thank you Jack for the explaination of the checking other names error.
> > At least I know a little bit about what the problem is. I do find it
> > interesting that both John's and my check showed 9 errors. His showed
87
> > records, mine showed 279 but both had 9 errors.
> >
> > I suppose it is just coincidence but strange to me.
>
> Maybe the program only reports the first 9 errors. I've had different
> programs that had different tolerance levels -- one would report EVERY
> error, all 12,000 of 'em; one would report each error once only; one
> would report ALL of certain errors, none of certain other errors; and
> I've got a comm program what will flat disconnect me after 12 consecutive
> d/l errors...not just abort the d/l, but drop my carrier!
>
> So, I guess, the question is, has anyone had an error report of more than
> 9 errors?
>
> Cheryl
>
============================================================================
> For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>
============================================================================
>
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:43:27 -0700
From: "Mark E. Gower" <famlyman@speedchoice.com>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
OK--
I have had a report with several hundred errors and they all were
pointer problems. This type of problem stems from the structure of
Ancestral File-- especially when they have a person's spouse the same
person as their grandmother OR something equally as bizarre.
And since we're on the subject-- I would like to add a few words of
caution about the Check/Repair sub-program of PAF. Be very careful about
how you handle your file processing/back-ups/check&repairs.
I would say that if your database is less than 5000 records that you
will have little problem with your maintenance of the database. However,
as your database gets larger-- naturally it will take more time to sort,
merge, back-up, check/repair and, heaven forbid, restore.
Let me give you some insights that I have learned--
1) As your database grows and it takes longer to get around in it or
just back-up, you may be wise to also consider a newer computer also.
Yes, I know that everyone doesn't have the money to just get a new
computer. But, if your database is less than 50,000 records and taking
hours to do a check/repair-- you have a processor speed problem and an
old, ready to crash, computer.
2) When you are adding large GEDCOMs and merging information-- your
database file (*.paf) is getting fragmented. Just one 1500 record
addition and a merge of 90 records will cause enough fragmentation. This
can cause your check/repair to stop prematurely or make a back-up
unusable and you have no idea of the problem occurring.
3) Just backing-up your database may be just back-up your errors and
provide no help if you have to restore your file. Don't be concerned
that the check/repair found errors. Be concerned if it was unable to
repair the errors it found. It does no good to just check the file for
errors-- they must be repaired also. You might as well to it at the same
time.
4) Have you scanned your hard drive of errors? Using SCANDISK will
alert you before your hard drive fails and you end up having to start
from scratch. This is a must if your computer and hard drive are 'over
the hill'.
I will now offer these suggestions, for the health of your database
file, based on my accumulation of, what is now, 235,000 record database.
I use a new hard drive that runs at 7200 RPMs, a Pentium II 450 MHz
processor and a lot of faith. It still takes hours to do a check/repair
but it is done when I am sleeping at night.
1) Every month, at least, do a SCANDISK & DEFRAG, without fail. If
you are doing a lot of merging or adding of information, do it weekly.
2) Before doing a back-up, be sure to defragment-- I have had
experience with a transfer file being corrupt due to the original file
being fragmented. This way you can be sure that you back-up will be a
good one.
3) If you have a larger database, over 50,000 records, re-start your
computer before you run a check/repair or back-up. This way, all of the
temporary files that are used are deleted and your are working in a
fresh environment without any other things going on in the background.
4) There is no real need to do a back-up before a check/repair or
merge-- unless you have not done one recently. This will save a lot of
your time. However, if you are adding information or new records,
GEDCOMing records in and merging-- you should set some type of standard
for backing-up and defraging your database. My limit is, at least daily,
for additions by keyboard.
When I'm adding by GEDCOM, I create a temporary database and stay within
a family line, merge then export to my main database. When I import by
GEDCOM I keep track of the count and merge with each 1500 + new records
and verify that there are no connecting individuals not merged. The
DEFRAG and back-up is done about every 4500 to 6000 GEDCOMed records.
With smaller databases, the limits could be smaller, of course.
5) You may have noticed that the merge by AFN only works if both
records being merged are the same. If there are any differences, even
case sensitive, will prevent the merge. You can manually merge these
records but, you cannot make any changes-- this is a forced merge. You
would be better off copying the RIN numbers down and doing it completely
manually.
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1972 16:32:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
That would seem to dispose of that option, wouldn't it. (g)
Cheryl
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Ardean wrote:
> Today I was testing our new Network which I had changed the number of
> generations that could be downloaded from 13 to 100. This created a GEDCOM
> of over 33,000 people in 15 minutes. So I than imported it into the new PAF
> 4.0.4 and did a Check/repair on that file. There were over 200 errors that
> were found and fixed. So PAF 4.0.4 does go beyond 9 errors.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Ardean
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
> To: <paf@innernet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 1972 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
>
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alice Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Jack for the explaination of the checking other names error.
> > > At least I know a little bit about what the problem is. I do find it
> > > interesting that both John's and my check showed 9 errors. His showed
> 87
> > > records, mine showed 279 but both had 9 errors.
> > >
> > > I suppose it is just coincidence but strange to me.
> >
> > Maybe the program only reports the first 9 errors. I've had different
> > programs that had different tolerance levels -- one would report EVERY
> > error, all 12,000 of 'em; one would report each error once only; one
> > would report ALL of certain errors, none of certain other errors; and
> > I've got a comm program what will flat disconnect me after 12 consecutive
> > d/l errors...not just abort the d/l, but drop my carrier!
> >
> > So, I guess, the question is, has anyone had an error report of more than
> > 9 errors?
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:38:10 +0000
From: "Alice Harris" <akh@molalla.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Mark
Thank you mark for all the wonderful maintenance information to help keep
our Paf databases clean.
I do create a backup each time I add anything to my database but my
concern was that I had not done a check/fix since I started with Paf 4.
I must admit I miss having the screen come up as you go out that reminds
you not only of the backup but the check disk. Anyway I suspected that my
backups probably had the same errors. I do do scandisk and defrag fairly
regularly but I appreciate the comments on doing it before we do backups
so that we know all is in order.
I did get Paf 4.0.4.18 downloaded to my computer last night and ran the
check/repair successfully and hopefully nothing else changed. But then I
only had 9 pointer errors in a file of 3200. I will definitely be sure
to keep up with my defrag and scandisk though.
Thanks, again,
Alice Harris
Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:43:27 -0700
From: "Mark E. Gower" <famlyman@speedchoice.com>
To: paf@innernet.org
Subject: Re: [PAF] Check Files Paf 4.0.4.16
Send reply to: paf@innernet.org
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:56:45 -0500
From: "Harold" <hpscuba@toast.net>
Subject: [PAF] pointer's
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF7A0F.9C0F26C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am new to PAF=20
I just downloaded 4.0.4 and imported my GED file
I did a check file and came up with a bunch of pointer errors.=20
example Individual 893 less pointer (960) is not less.
Individual 1479 greater pointer (1653) is not greater.
What does this mean?
Thank you
Harold
- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF7A0F.9C0F26C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am new to PAF </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I just downloaded 4.0.4 and imported my =
GED=20
file</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I did a check file and came up with a =
bunch of=20
pointer errors. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>example Individual 893 less =
pointer=20
(960) is not less.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> &nbs=
p; =20
Individual 1479 greater pointer (1653) is not greater.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What does this mean?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Harold</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF7A0F.9C0F26C0--
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
End of paf-digest V2000 #13
***************************
To unsubscribe to PAF-Digest, send the following command to
majordomo@innernet.org:
unsubscribe paf-digest
At this point there is no direct method to receive back issues other than
to email ed.rogers@innernet.org. Happy PAF'ing!