TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-10 > 1097430633


From: Gordon Banks <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Age calculator & irregular dates
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:50:38 -0700
References: <000801c4acab$395826c0$6401a8c0@D3134W31> <1097186055.1538.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.0.2.0.0.20041007191828.025ba560@pop.sprynet.com> <1097256061.3078.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.0.2.0.0.20041008171807.025b8270@pop.sprynet.com> <1097362396.5701.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.0.2.0.0.20041009180711.025cbe30@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.2.0.0.20041009180711.025cbe30@pop.sprynet.com>


Yes, but leaving the date blank wouldn't trigger the age calculator to
use the sort date for the age. Only an irregular date being there
would.

On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 16:16, Darrell Martin wrote:
> At 05:53 PM 10/9/04, Gordon Banks wrote:
> >OK, I see your point. I use sort dates to estimate where an event would
> >be in time when I don't have an regular date that I can put in. Someone
> >else might use them in some other way. However, since the sort date
> >would only be used for the age calculator when the birth event contained
> >no regular date, I don't think it would mess many people up. Would it
> >mess you up?
> >
> >Of course my solution is just a kludge and there may be another way of
> >handling it.
>
> Hi, Gordon:
>
> It would mess me up, big time, and I think a very significant percent of TMG users would say the same. The problem is this: Although the way you use the sort date is acceptable, one "other way" of using the sort date is in fact the purpose for which it was designed, and the only purpose which the program supports.
>
> I think it very common indeed (it happens frequently in my own data) that there is nothing in the date field, and a regular date in the sort field which is almost completely arbitrary for anything other than ... sorting. Example: say I have five siblings. All I know about them is that they are siblings, and the order of their birth. So I leave the date field blank, and use the following sort dates, having concluded that 1885 would be a "reasonable guess" at the birth year of a child of this family:
>
> 1 Jan 1885 for Abe
> 2 Jan 1885 for Betsey
> 3 Jan 1885 for Charles
> 4 Jan 1885 for Dorothy
> 5 Jan 1885 for Edward
>
> This is a perfectly normal, suggested, designed, use of the sort date. In that context it works beautifully. To calculate an age from any of these would be, simply put, an error.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> Darrell A. Martin
> a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
> http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy
>
>
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to <> [to <> in Digest mode] with just the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text and turn off your signature.

This thread: