Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

sysncing problem with large amounts of data

Expand Messages
  • Scott Scheibe
    It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names. Say I ve got one
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 7, 2009
      It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
      could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.

      Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
      with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
      done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.

      But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
      Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia

      Sugar,LEE,VI,
      Sugar Run, Virginia
      Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..

      If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one location
      name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
      of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
      county/didn't have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
      name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
      unnecessary data for every event..




      Scott Scheibe
      dsscheibe@...
      <http://scottsworld.info/gene.htm>

      Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
      <http://woodward.scottsworld.info/>
    • George Wright
      I ve observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not reduce the
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
        I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85 people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
         
        By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search, not Ancestral Quest.
         
        George E. Wright
        Encinitas, California
         
        --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...> wrote:

        From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...>
        Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM






        It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
        could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.

        Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
        with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
        done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.

        But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
        Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia

        Sugar,LEE,VI,
        Sugar Run, Virginia
        Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..

        If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one location
        name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
        of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
        county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
        name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
        unnecessary data for every event..

        Scott Scheibe
        dsscheibe@earthlink .net
        <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>

        Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
        <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gaylon Findlay
        George, Scott: In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
          George, Scott:

          In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
          a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
          screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
          you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
          to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)

          For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
          from an actual record):

          Minden, ON, Canada
          Minden, Ontario, Canada
          Minden, ON
          Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

          All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
          Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
          only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
          which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
          FamilySearch shows you this:

          Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

          You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
          variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
          single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
          a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
          seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.

          I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
          of places :-)

          Gaylon



          George Wright wrote:
          > I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85 people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
          >
          > By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search, not Ancestral Quest.
          >
          > George E. Wright
          > Encinitas, California
          >
          > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...>
          > Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
          > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
          > could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
          >
          > Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
          > with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
          > done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
          >
          > But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
          > Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
          >
          > Sugar,LEE,VI,
          > Sugar Run, Virginia
          > Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
          >
          > If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one location
          > name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
          > of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
          > county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
          > name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
          > unnecessary data for every event..
          >
          > Scott Scheibe
          > dsscheibe@earthlink .net
          > <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
          >
          > Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
          > <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Terry D. Smith
          Dear Gaylon... A thought on this issue. A lot of people have tried to standardize the place names for the people in their database, often spending a lot of
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
            Dear Gaylon...

            A thought on this issue. A lot of people have tried to standardize
            the place names for the people in their database, often spending a lot
            of time to look up Counties, or Provences where places are located
            because vital records are often in te County seat, or Provence etc.

            All of this is already stored in the name database within AQ. Items
            that come over from nFS that are incomplete, or truncated should obey
            the rules of existing place names or atleast give the user the option
            to accept a truncated place name, or select from a group of already
            verified places names so as to prevent a mess in the AQ database. As
            it is we now much manually correct almost everything that comes over
            from nFS because other have left off surnames, places names, counties,
            etc., all of which are known elements, but someone either did not know
            or got lazy. Surnames that are CAPS instead of Caps are a royal pain
            yet this too is configured with AQ, but we cannot get nFS to obey the
            standards already established within AQ.

            I believe too, that a stanadard import could be devised that begged
            the question, if this ordinances date of these many, the earliest or
            most recent, and select the earliest one to thus avoid having to alter
            auto imports or perform the selections manually. But alas, perhaps
            this is a future enhancement.

            Ahem... if I could get a fix for my issue with Quick Entry (advanced),
            I could spend less time rekeying places names too..... Terry

            On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:32:50 -0600, Gaylon Findlay
            <gfindlay@...> wrote the following:

            >George, Scott:
            >
            >In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
            >a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
            >screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
            >you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
            >to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)
            >
            >For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
            >from an actual record):
            >
            >Minden, ON, Canada
            >Minden, Ontario, Canada
            >Minden, ON
            >Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario
            >
            >All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
            >Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
            >only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
            >which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
            >FamilySearch shows you this:
            >
            >Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario
            >
            >You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
            >variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
            >single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
            >a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
            >seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.
            >
            >I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
            >of places :-)
            >
            >Gaylon
            >
            >
            >
            >George Wright wrote:
            >> I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85 people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
            >>
            >> By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search, not Ancestral Quest.
            >>
            >> George E. Wright
            >> Encinitas, California
            >>
            >> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...>
            >> Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
            >> To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
            >> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
            >> could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
            >>
            >> Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
            >> with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
            >> done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
            >>
            >> But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
            >> Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
            >>
            >> Sugar,LEE,VI,
            >> Sugar Run, Virginia
            >> Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
            >>
            >> If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one location
            >> name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
            >> of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
            >> county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
            >> name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
            >> unnecessary data for every event..
            >>
            >> Scott Scheibe
            >> dsscheibe@earthlink .net
            >> <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
            >>
            >> Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
            >> <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> ------------------------------------
            >>
            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            Terry D. Smith and Family
            1978 Miner Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104-5214

            Happy Holidays... may your Family Researh Grow

            Researching the surnames: Billedeaux, Hungate, Garrett, King, Martin,
            Weale, Trickel, Armelle, Swearingen, Price, Lund, Johnson, Thomas, Eyre,
            Mihelich, Springer, Trebnik, Armentrout, Marcelain, Mayfield, Ward

            Genealogy URL: http://home.earthlink.net/~tdsfamgen100/ which links to
            http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=tsmith
          • Stewart Milar
            Gaylon, I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered (original) place names and standardised place names. nFS has been deliberately
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
              Gaylon,

              I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered
              (original) place names and standardised place names.



              nFS has been deliberately set up to allow the place names to be entered as
              we wish to see them - which allows one to follow the genealogical standard
              of using a place name to match the particular time period. The chosen,
              preferred (original) place name may or may not match with a standardised
              place name - nFS advice is that it does not have to.



              The displayed place name on nFS screens is the entered (original) place name
              for any particular event. Using the "Details" screen, hovering the cursor
              over the place name will display any matching standardised place name - if
              the entered place name was matched with a standardised place name on entry.



              I advice my students to not to be at all worried or concerned what the
              standardised place name is, but to carefully enter the place name as you
              wish to see it (using best genealogical practice) - and in most cases it is
              likely to match with a standardised location - but don't worry if it does
              not; nFS feedback have said they are interested in learning of place names
              that do not match with standardised place names.



              Sometimes nFS will give you a choice of standardised place names - where the
              entered (original) place name is superimposed in a lighter, smaller text
              matched with a number of standardised place names in the drop down box of
              standardised place names.



              The standardised place names I believe serve two purposes - (1) relates the
              location to a modern political map and (2) facilitates matching on searches.



              We have some very particular difficulties with nFS standardised place names
              in the British Isles that are detrimental to using the standardised place
              names as the "original" entered place name - in particular, due to its
              mapping with the current political structure resulting in the use of
              "United Kingdom" (that is - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
              Ireland") as the final country designation for all time periods - including
              when the UK did not exist; and secondly, that many place locations in the UK
              are doubly defined in the standardised place name list due to many of the
              historic counties having been divided into a new tier of local government
              called "Unitary Authorities" resulting in many towns and villages having a
              standardised entry under the historic county and also under the Unitary
              Authority - and as UA's have changed they could be under multiple UA
              designations as well. But - as I said above, it really is of no consequence
              what form the standardised place name takes - it could just as easily be a
              GPS reference - what is important is what you believe it should be from the
              records you are working from - and it could so easily change in the future -
              in the UK, Scotland is always on the political verge of voting to leave the
              "United Kingdom".



              In conclusion - there are very good reasons for nFS storing two place name
              locations for each event and we should use them as they are best suited to
              the circumstances and not assume that "standardised" is best.



              Regards,

              Stewart Millar





              From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              Gaylon Findlay
              Sent: 08 April 2009 17:33
              To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data



              George, Scott:

              In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
              a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
              screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
              you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
              to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)

              For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
              from an actual record):

              Minden, ON, Canada
              Minden, Ontario, Canada
              Minden, ON
              Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

              All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
              Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
              only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
              which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
              FamilySearch shows you this:

              Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

              You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
              variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
              single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
              a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
              seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.

              I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
              of places :-)

              Gaylon

              George Wright wrote:
              > I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of
              lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not
              reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85
              people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
              >
              > By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search,
              not Ancestral Quest.
              >
              > George E. Wright
              > Encinitas, California
              >
              > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
              <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> > wrote:
              >
              > From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
              <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> >
              > Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
              > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
              > could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
              >
              > Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
              > with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
              > done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
              >
              > But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
              > Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
              >
              > Sugar,LEE,VI,
              > Sugar Run, Virginia
              > Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
              >
              > If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one
              location
              > name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
              > of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
              > county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
              > name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
              > unnecessary data for every event..
              >
              > Scott Scheibe
              > dsscheibe@earthlink .net
              > <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
              >
              > Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
              > <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • James Pitt
              Absolutely Stewart, I couldn t have explained it better. I already have many instances in my Tree where a place has moved Counties due to a change in
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
                Absolutely Stewart, I couldn't have explained it better. I already have many instances in my Tree where a place has moved Counties due to a change in Boundaries. In at least one instance it changed 3 times (Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire) in the course of less than 100 years.

                Kind Regards

                James Pitt
                Lyndhurst Road
                Amesbury
                Wiltshire
                SP4 7PG (33)
                Tel: 01980 590876
                Mbl: 07881 684839
                Email: jim.pitt47@...


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Stewart Milar
                To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:51 PM
                Subject: [AQ_NFS] Standardised Place Names


                Gaylon,

                I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered
                (original) place names and standardised place names.

                nFS has been deliberately set up to allow the place names to be entered as
                we wish to see them - which allows one to follow the genealogical standard
                of using a place name to match the particular time period. The chosen,
                preferred (original) place name may or may not match with a standardised
                place name - nFS advice is that it does not have to.

                The displayed place name on nFS screens is the entered (original) place name
                for any particular event. Using the "Details" screen, hovering the cursor
                over the place name will display any matching standardised place name - if
                the entered place name was matched with a standardised place name on entry.

                I advice my students to not to be at all worried or concerned what the
                standardised place name is, but to carefully enter the place name as you
                wish to see it (using best genealogical practice) - and in most cases it is
                likely to match with a standardised location - but don't worry if it does
                not; nFS feedback have said they are interested in learning of place names
                that do not match with standardised place names.

                Sometimes nFS will give you a choice of standardised place names - where the
                entered (original) place name is superimposed in a lighter, smaller text
                matched with a number of standardised place names in the drop down box of
                standardised place names.

                The standardised place names I believe serve two purposes - (1) relates the
                location to a modern political map and (2) facilitates matching on searches.

                We have some very particular difficulties with nFS standardised place names
                in the British Isles that are detrimental to using the standardised place
                names as the "original" entered place name - in particular, due to its
                mapping with the current political structure resulting in the use of
                "United Kingdom" (that is - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                Ireland") as the final country designation for all time periods - including
                when the UK did not exist; and secondly, that many place locations in the UK
                are doubly defined in the standardised place name list due to many of the
                historic counties having been divided into a new tier of local government
                called "Unitary Authorities" resulting in many towns and villages having a
                standardised entry under the historic county and also under the Unitary
                Authority - and as UA's have changed they could be under multiple UA
                designations as well. But - as I said above, it really is of no consequence
                what form the standardised place name takes - it could just as easily be a
                GPS reference - what is important is what you believe it should be from the
                records you are working from - and it could so easily change in the future -
                in the UK, Scotland is always on the political verge of voting to leave the
                "United Kingdom".

                In conclusion - there are very good reasons for nFS storing two place name
                locations for each event and we should use them as they are best suited to
                the circumstances and not assume that "standardised" is best.

                Regards,

                Stewart Millar

                From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                Gaylon Findlay
                Sent: 08 April 2009 17:33
                To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data

                George, Scott:

                In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
                a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
                screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
                you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
                to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)

                For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
                from an actual record):

                Minden, ON, Canada
                Minden, Ontario, Canada
                Minden, ON
                Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

                All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
                Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
                only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
                which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
                FamilySearch shows you this:

                Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

                You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
                variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
                single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
                a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
                seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.

                I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
                of places :-)

                Gaylon

                George Wright wrote:
                > I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of
                lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not
                reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85
                people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
                >
                > By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search,
                not Ancestral Quest.
                >
                > George E. Wright
                > Encinitas, California
                >
                > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
                <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> > wrote:
                >
                > From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
                <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> >
                > Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
                > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
                > could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
                >
                > Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
                > with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
                > done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
                >
                > But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
                > Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
                >
                > Sugar,LEE,VI,
                > Sugar Run, Virginia
                > Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
                >
                > If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one
                location
                > name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
                > of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
                > county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
                > name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
                > unnecessary data for every event..
                >
                > Scott Scheibe
                > dsscheibe@earthlink .net
                > <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
                >
                > Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
                > <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.