GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-10 > 1098981448


From: "GKBopp" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New Group Administrator Questions
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:37:28 -1000
References: <200410281514.i9SFEeuI015765@smtp.mcn.org>


> I don't use kit numbers because our study is relatively small and I don't
> like having to make space for another column in my tables. I might have
> to
> go to a code system someday. If I do, I will try to make it an informative
> code that is easier to follow in discussion than random kit numbers (at
> least random in the context of the Dorsey DNA Project.)

When I started the Kinney project, I had random codes - like L3 and T7.
That was more private and easier to "talk" about than a kit number
"Compare L3 with T7 and notice that . . . . ." is easier than "Compare 4585
with 16791 and notice that . . . ."

BUT - once I got beyond about 15-20 participants that method was making me
nutso! And I had to have cross reference lists, and so on. So, I dropped
that and began using kit numbers on the web and elsewhere as my master list
number.

I recently started a Lenhart project. Here, I tried something different - I
use the kit number but also refer to the participants as L1, L2, L3, and so
on. L for Lenhart (or variation) and the number just indicates the order
the participants ordered tests. This has the advantage of easier discourse
"Compare L1 with L3" (and for some reason, better than saying compare 1 with
3) and at least those numbers are in the same order as the numeric kit
numbers. Of course, this just adds one more column to an already tight web
page line - because I keep the kit numbers there!

By the way, I noticed in general, by the time I hit 20 people, project
management got more cumbersome. For one thing, I could not "personally"
remember everyone any more (I used to "know" them by the emails, etc.), and
so on . Also notice that some of the "nicest" web site presentations have
ten or less participants. After that, things just get complicated - esp.
for a "broad" project (open to all variations) because there are more family
groups and non-matches to deal with.

Georgia
Georgia Kinney Bopp
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gkbopp/KINNEY/Research/results.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gkbopp/LENHART/DNA/results.htm

This thread: