[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PAF] Terminology question
And here it is Tuesday and a different problem.
Running the COUNT DESCENDANTS feature, PAF says RIN #6 has 211
descendants, RIN #8 has 688, and RIN #17327 has 1432.
So, just to annoy myself, I ran GENBOOK on each of those RINs, including
all stepchildren. GENBOOK found 25 descendants for RIN 6; 119 for RIN 8;
and 98 for RIN 17327.
Now just to refresh the ol' memory, There are over 23,000 people in this
data, of whom 13,640 (or possibly 13,575, depending on the day of the
month you ask PAF) descend from RIN #1 (father of RINs 6, 8, and 17327);
GenBook produced a list of somewhere in the ballpark of those two.
Sooooo, if PAF and GenBook can agree there are 13,000+ descendants of #1,
why the huge discrepancy on the count for the others?
And everyone wonders why I'm paranoid about whether something actually
got into the book? It's NOT paranoia if they really are out to getcha.
Seriously, have any of the rest of you encountered anything like this, or
am I just lucky? I really don't know how trustworthy the data is or the
book output is at this point.
Cheryl
On Mon, 19 Mar 1973, Cheryl Singhal wrote:
>
> It's not just one individual. On a quick count of one screen with the
> descendency chart's 13th generation showing, I found 14 people. Still,
> since it was all on one screen, theoretically the error could have been
> 12 gens earlier ... I'll check the rest of the file and see if they're
> all off one line.
>
> I was afraid I was right about the math, but (g) as you all know, math
> isn't my strong suit, so I was hoping there was a reasonable explanation.
>
> Thanks, Chip!
>
> Cheryl
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 klary-jr@hannaford.com wrote:
>
> >
> > My first guess wold be that the individual you are wondering about was
> > incorrectly connected to his or her ancestors. I discovered a similar
> > error when I actually generated my text for a book. I went back into PAF,
> > fixed the connection, re-generated, and everything was fine.
> >
> > Just in case you find this is not the situation, there is no mathematical
> > way that an individual would be two generations different from the book to
> > your generated copy if all other things are the same. If this were the
> > case, then every individual in that generation would be two generations
> > different from the book.
> >
> > Chip Lary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheryl Singhal
> > <csinghal@CapA To: paf-list <paf@innernet.org>
> > ccess.org> cc:
> > Sent by: Subject: [PAF] Terminology question
> > paf@ufo.netson
> > ic.fi
> >
> >
> > 03/18/73 04:42
> > PM
> > Please respond
> > to paf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When I print out a DESCENDANCY chart from PAF, beginning with RIN #1, I
> > get a many-page printout, with 13 generations showing.
> >
> > THIS is good, because the data came from a published book which showed 12
> > generations, and one of that 12th generation has had a child. (g)
> >
> > What's puzzling me is -- In the book, ID# 6013 is shown in the 8th
> > generation, but on the chart it's showing in the 9th generation. *BOTH*
> > these begin with the same person in position 1 -- Common Progenitor.
> >
> > And, the reason I looked into it in the first place, when I used the same
> > database to print (using a 3rd party utility called GENBOOK), it gave me
> > only 11 generations.
> >
> > So, OK -- could one of you math whizzes explain (in words of two or fewer
> > syllables, please) what's going on?
> >
> > If Common Progenitor is Generation #1, and ALL the same descendants are
> > in all places, why aren't there the same number of generations? Now,
> > maybe, if one posited that although Common Progenitor is in Position 1,
> > it's his children who are really Generation #1, that would explain the
> > 8th gen or 9th gen difference; it wouldn't explain the difference between
> > 11 gens and 13.
> >
> > And the *real* question at hand is -- Did GenBook get all the
> > descendants? I really do not want to print out a 100-page or so
> > descendancy chart and sit there doing a find next on every name on it!
> >
> > Cheryl
> > ============================================================================
> >
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> > Searchable list archives at http://www.innernet.org/paf/archives/
> > Want to unsubscribe? Try this link:
> > mailto:majordomo@innernet.org?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe%paf
> > ============================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================================
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> > Searchable list archives at http://www.innernet.org/paf/archives/
> > Want to unsubscribe? Try this link:
> > mailto:majordomo@innernet.org?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe%paf
> > ============================================================================
> >
>
>
>
> ============================================================================
> For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> Searchable list archives at http://www.innernet.org/paf/archives/
> Want to unsubscribe? Try this link:
> mailto:majordomo@innernet.org?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe%paf
> ============================================================================
>
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
Searchable list archives at http://www.innernet.org/paf/archives/
Want to unsubscribe? Try this link:
mailto:majordomo@innernet.org?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe%paf
============================================================================