TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-05 > 1305211948


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] TMG7 Audit
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:52:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000001cc10ae$bfefcee0$3fcf6ca0$@rogers.com>


Ron Chenier wrote:
> Thank Terry,
>
> I don't see any major problems with my data or reports,
> so I'll just disregard that type of error in the Audit
> report.

You're welcome, Ron,

There is no "problem" here - it's just that the report takes things very literally, and sees Jun 1944 coming before Jun 7 1944.

By the way, there are many legitimate cases where "errors" listed in the Audit report are not errors at all. For example with this test, you might well have probate tags that would properly be listed after death, but will show up as an issue in the Audit report.

Other tests could also report issues that are not really errors, including for example, death after age 100, having more than 10 children, marriage before the default ages, and birth after the father's death.

Not everything in the report should be considered an error - these are just items that are suspicious and should be looked at.

In the case of your burial dates, I don't see that problem because I don't enter any burial date when I don't actually have one, just a sort date to place the burial tag after the death tag. I do that because you don't actually know in many cases which month it was. For deaths near the end of the month you can never be sure. But there are other cases where burials are delayed a long time. In very cold climates it was not uncommon to delay winter burials until spring when the ground was no longer frozen. And I have a case where a man died in the North during the Civil War, and the family couldn't get the body back home for some months.

That's not to say your method is wrong; I think that's a matter of how you choose to enter your data. But in any case, you should disregard issues raised by the audit report once you see that there is no actual error.

Terry Reigel




This thread: