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

How to note a possible correction to VSX data

Expand Messages
  • rcdegraeve
    I m wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem to focus on submission of a new
    Message 1 of 8 , May 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
      corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem to focus
      on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include supporting
      data.

      In looking through VSX and some of the reference information cited in
      an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data entry.
      It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it wrong)
      but I know you want the database to be as accurate as possible. I'll
      save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear on how to
      go about this.

      Thanks for your help!

      Rick De Graeve
      AAVSO - DGR
    • Christopher Watson
      Hi Rick, To tell you the truth, I d rather you didn t save the details for actual submission. Please give me an example of what you re talking about. If this
      Message 2 of 8 , May 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rick,

        To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details for
        actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're talking
        about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a back-end
        solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of corrected
        data. If it's something very localized, then user submissions may be
        OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please show me what
        you've got. Thanks!

        Christopher Watson
        Principal Architect
        VSX

        On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
        > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
        > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem to focus
        > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include supporting
        > data.
        >
        > In looking through VSX and some of the reference information cited in
        > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data entry.
        > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it wrong)
        > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as possible. I'll
        > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear on how to
        > go about this.
        >
        > Thanks for your help!
        >
        > Rick De Graeve
        > AAVSO - DGR
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • rcdegraeve
        Hello Chris, I apologize for not including the info in my original post but I wasn t sure it would be okay. Anyway... My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs.
        Message 3 of 8 , May 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Chris,

          I apologize for not including the info in my original post but I
          wasn't sure it would be okay.

          Anyway...

          My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs. Looking into some SRs in
          Cephus I came across an what may be inaccurate info in VSX for AN CEP
          (haven't had time to look into any more). The "Study ref." in the
          database notes "C.Payne-Gaposchkin HA 118, N27, 1952." Now, this
          information as text only is correct as far as it goes (since it
          doesn't reference the field). The problem seems to be where it
          points. When following the hot spot, it takes you to the abstract for
          Milton Field 27, which covers stars in Hydra, Leo and Sextans.
          Digging a little deeper in the Harvard Annals, I found that, though
          AN CEP is, indeed, in vol 118, No. 27, it is in the abstract for
          Milton Field 1, not 27. I'm guessing it could be a misinterpertation
          of the "N27".

          It could be possible that I'm misinterperting what I see but I
          thought I'd bring it up the the discussion group. I hope this doesn't
          send anyone off on any wild goose chases!

          Rick De Graeve


          --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Watson" <skygeex@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Hi Rick,
          >
          > To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details for
          > actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're talking
          > about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a back-end
          > solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of corrected
          > data. If it's something very localized, then user submissions may
          be
          > OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please show me
          what
          > you've got. Thanks!
          >
          > Christopher Watson
          > Principal Architect
          > VSX
          >
          > On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
          > > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
          > > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem to
          focus
          > > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include
          supporting
          > > data.
          > >
          > > In looking through VSX and some of the reference information
          cited in
          > > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data
          entry.
          > > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it
          wrong)
          > > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as possible.
          I'll
          > > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear on
          how to
          > > go about this.
          > >
          > > Thanks for your help!
          > >
          > > Rick De Graeve
          > > AAVSO - DGR
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • rcdegraeve
          Just a note on the consistency of the error... I just took a quick look at RW CEP and find the same type of mis-direction at least for 2 of these that the
          Message 4 of 8 , May 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Just a note on the consistency of the error... I just took a quick
            look at RW CEP and find the same type of mis-direction at least for 2
            of these that the Study ref. points to the Harvard Annals. This one
            also points to Milton Field 27 abstract and it should point to Milton
            Field 9.

            ... hope this is doing some good.

            Rick

            --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "rcdegraeve" <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello Chris,
            >
            > I apologize for not including the info in my original post but I
            > wasn't sure it would be okay.
            >
            > Anyway...
            >
            > My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs. Looking into some SRs in
            > Cephus I came across an what may be inaccurate info in VSX for AN
            CEP
            > (haven't had time to look into any more). The "Study ref." in the
            > database notes "C.Payne-Gaposchkin HA 118, N27, 1952." Now, this
            > information as text only is correct as far as it goes (since it
            > doesn't reference the field). The problem seems to be where it
            > points. When following the hot spot, it takes you to the abstract
            for
            > Milton Field 27, which covers stars in Hydra, Leo and Sextans.
            > Digging a little deeper in the Harvard Annals, I found that, though
            > AN CEP is, indeed, in vol 118, No. 27, it is in the abstract for
            > Milton Field 1, not 27. I'm guessing it could be a
            misinterpertation
            > of the "N27".
            >
            > It could be possible that I'm misinterperting what I see but I
            > thought I'd bring it up the the discussion group. I hope this
            doesn't
            > send anyone off on any wild goose chases!
            >
            > Rick De Graeve
            >
            >
            > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Watson" <skygeex@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Rick,
            > >
            > > To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details for
            > > actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're
            talking
            > > about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a back-
            end
            > > solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of
            corrected
            > > data. If it's something very localized, then user submissions
            may
            > be
            > > OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please show me
            > what
            > > you've got. Thanks!
            > >
            > > Christopher Watson
            > > Principal Architect
            > > VSX
            > >
            > > On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@> wrote:
            > > > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
            > > > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem
            to
            > focus
            > > > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include
            > supporting
            > > > data.
            > > >
            > > > In looking through VSX and some of the reference information
            > cited in
            > > > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data
            > entry.
            > > > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it
            > wrong)
            > > > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as
            possible.
            > I'll
            > > > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear
            on
            > how to
            > > > go about this.
            > > >
            > > > Thanks for your help!
            > > >
            > > > Rick De Graeve
            > > > AAVSO - DGR
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Sebastian Otero
            Subject: [vsx-dis] Re: How to note a possible correction to VSX data Hi, Rick, The problem here lies in the catalogue source. What I mean is, up to last year,
            Message 5 of 8 , May 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Subject: [vsx-dis] Re: How to note a possible correction to VSX data


              Hi, Rick,

              The problem here lies in the catalogue source.
              What I mean is, up to last year, when people started submitting new
              variables to the database, VSX was only a colection of catalogues imported
              as they are. This means that if the original catalogue has errors, the
              errors will be in the DB and it is our goal to correct them when we find
              them. People like you noting these mistakes and submitting a revision to
              correct them is what we really need.
              Once the catalogue imports were ended, we knew (from the beginning) that a
              neverending task was ahead of us: correcting all the mistakes and updating
              all the data included in VSX.
              We also have stars with more than one entry due to the nature of the
              database: if the star is in several catalogues, all those entries will be in
              VSX.
              A primary record will be created (and has been created for a few stars) with
              links to the other catalogues when relevant. The primary record will show
              the best data available for a given star. But this process takes a lot of
              time and the user has to choose among the different entries by now.
              GCVS entries have been given precedence (I mean if a revision of a star is
              made it will be made to the GCVS entry and not to the ASAS or NSVS entry)
              since they have the official names and include most of the variable stars.

              So, going back to the errors you found. We have followed the policy of
              keeping the original remarks as they are in the source catalogue so I would
              suggest that you go to the Additional remark section and add a remark with
              what you found and the correct reference.

              We could discuss with Chris and all the people if that is the best thing to
              do.

              Best wishes,
              Sebastian.

              > Just a note on the consistency of the error... I just took a quick
              > look at RW CEP and find the same type of mis-direction at least for 2
              > of these that the Study ref. points to the Harvard Annals. This one
              > also points to Milton Field 27 abstract and it should point to Milton
              > Field 9.
              >
              > ... hope this is doing some good.
              >
              > Rick
              >
              > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "rcdegraeve" <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Hello Chris,
              >>
              >> I apologize for not including the info in my original post but I
              >> wasn't sure it would be okay.
              >>
              >> Anyway...
              >>
              >> My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs. Looking into some SRs in
              >> Cephus I came across an what may be inaccurate info in VSX for AN
              > CEP
              >> (haven't had time to look into any more). The "Study ref." in the
              >> database notes "C.Payne-Gaposchkin HA 118, N27, 1952." Now, this
              >> information as text only is correct as far as it goes (since it
              >> doesn't reference the field). The problem seems to be where it
              >> points. When following the hot spot, it takes you to the abstract
              > for
              >> Milton Field 27, which covers stars in Hydra, Leo and Sextans.
              >> Digging a little deeper in the Harvard Annals, I found that, though
              >> AN CEP is, indeed, in vol 118, No. 27, it is in the abstract for
              >> Milton Field 1, not 27. I'm guessing it could be a
              > misinterpertation
              >> of the "N27".
              >>
              >> It could be possible that I'm misinterperting what I see but I
              >> thought I'd bring it up the the discussion group. I hope this
              > doesn't
              >> send anyone off on any wild goose chases!
              >>
              >> Rick De Graeve
              >>
              >>
              >> --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Watson" <skygeex@>
              >> wrote:
              >> >
              >> > Hi Rick,
              >> >
              >> > To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details for
              >> > actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're
              > talking
              >> > about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a back-
              > end
              >> > solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of
              > corrected
              >> > data. If it's something very localized, then user submissions
              > may
              >> be
              >> > OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please show me
              >> what
              >> > you've got. Thanks!
              >> >
              >> > Christopher Watson
              >> > Principal Architect
              >> > VSX
              >> >
              >> > On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@> wrote:
              >> > > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
              >> > > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem
              > to
              >> focus
              >> > > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include
              >> supporting
              >> > > data.
              >> > >
              >> > > In looking through VSX and some of the reference information
              >> cited in
              >> > > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data
              >> entry.
              >> > > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it
              >> wrong)
              >> > > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as
              > possible.
              >> I'll
              >> > > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear
              > on
              >> how to
              >> > > go about this.
              >> > >
              >> > > Thanks for your help!
              >> > >
              >> > > Rick De Graeve
              >> > > AAVSO - DGR
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> > >
              >> >
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > El mail recibido, fue verificado por el Servicio de Antivirus para mail de
              > Fullzero
              > y se encuentra libre de virus
              >
              >
            • Patrick Wils
              Hi Rick, The text references are the original GCVS references. These have been put through the ADS resolver to attach bibcodes to them. Since the GCVS
              Message 6 of 8 , May 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Rick,

                The text references are the original GCVS references. These have been put
                through the ADS resolver to attach bibcodes to them. Since the GCVS
                references are not written according to the standard ADS format, sometimes
                they needed a couple of tweaks so that the ADS resolver could understand
                them (e.g. the abbreviation needed changing for some journals). In some
                cases, such as these, misinterpretations by the ADS resolver results in
                wrong bibcodes. So these need to be corrected. In the cases you found
                the bibcodes should be 1952AnHar.118..147P for Field 9 and
                1952AnHar.118..217P for field 27. These will have to be corrected in the
                database themselves, there is no way to correct them through the user
                interface.
                Thanks for the corrections!

                Patrick

                --- rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:

                > Just a note on the consistency of the error... I just took a quick
                > look at RW CEP and find the same type of mis-direction at least for 2
                > of these that the Study ref. points to the Harvard Annals. This one
                > also points to Milton Field 27 abstract and it should point to Milton
                > Field 9.
                >
                > ... hope this is doing some good.
                >
                > Rick
                >
                > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "rcdegraeve" <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hello Chris,
                > >
                > > I apologize for not including the info in my original post but I
                > > wasn't sure it would be okay.
                > >
                > > Anyway...
                > >
                > > My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs. Looking into some SRs in
                > > Cephus I came across an what may be inaccurate info in VSX for AN
                > CEP
                > > (haven't had time to look into any more). The "Study ref." in the
                > > database notes "C.Payne-Gaposchkin HA 118, N27, 1952." Now, this
                > > information as text only is correct as far as it goes (since it
                > > doesn't reference the field). The problem seems to be where it
                > > points. When following the hot spot, it takes you to the abstract
                > for
                > > Milton Field 27, which covers stars in Hydra, Leo and Sextans.
                > > Digging a little deeper in the Harvard Annals, I found that, though
                > > AN CEP is, indeed, in vol 118, No. 27, it is in the abstract for
                > > Milton Field 1, not 27. I'm guessing it could be a
                > misinterpertation
                > > of the "N27".
                > >
                > > It could be possible that I'm misinterperting what I see but I
                > > thought I'd bring it up the the discussion group. I hope this
                > doesn't
                > > send anyone off on any wild goose chases!
                > >
                > > Rick De Graeve
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Watson" <skygeex@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Hi Rick,
                > > >
                > > > To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details for
                > > > actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're
                > talking
                > > > about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a back-
                > end
                > > > solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of
                > corrected
                > > > data. If it's something very localized, then user submissions
                > may
                > > be
                > > > OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please show me
                > > what
                > > > you've got. Thanks!
                > > >
                > > > Christopher Watson
                > > > Principal Architect
                > > > VSX
                > > >
                > > > On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@> wrote:
                > > > > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to data
                > > > > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they seem
                > to
                > > focus
                > > > > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to include
                > > supporting
                > > > > data.
                > > > >
                > > > > In looking through VSX and some of the reference information
                > > cited in
                > > > > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref. data
                > > entry.
                > > > > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading it
                > > wrong)
                > > > > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as
                > possible.
                > > I'll
                > > > > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too clear
                > on
                > > how to
                > > > > go about this.
                > > > >
                > > > > Thanks for your help!
                > > > >
                > > > > Rick De Graeve
                > > > > AAVSO - DGR
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • rcdegraeve
                I will most likely continue digging in the database. So... Is noting the discrepancies here in the discussion database the preferred method for getting the
                Message 7 of 8 , May 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I will most likely continue digging in the database. So... Is noting
                  the discrepancies here in the discussion database the preferred
                  method for getting the information to you? Would an email be better?
                  Also would you prefer that I hold all of the errors of this nature I
                  find until I am finished. Assuming I find more of these errors, I
                  want to be sure I do this in the way you most prefer.

                  Thanks!
                  Rick

                  --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Wils <patrickwils@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Rick,
                  >
                  > The text references are the original GCVS references. These have
                  been put
                  > through the ADS resolver to attach bibcodes to them. Since the GCVS
                  > references are not written according to the standard ADS format,
                  sometimes
                  > they needed a couple of tweaks so that the ADS resolver could
                  understand
                  > them (e.g. the abbreviation needed changing for some journals). In
                  some
                  > cases, such as these, misinterpretations by the ADS resolver
                  results in
                  > wrong bibcodes. So these need to be corrected. In the cases you
                  found
                  > the bibcodes should be 1952AnHar.118..147P for Field 9 and
                  > 1952AnHar.118..217P for field 27. These will have to be corrected
                  in the
                  > database themselves, there is no way to correct them through the
                  user
                  > interface.
                  > Thanks for the corrections!
                  >
                  > Patrick
                  >
                  > --- rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Just a note on the consistency of the error... I just took a
                  quick
                  > > look at RW CEP and find the same type of mis-direction at least
                  for 2
                  > > of these that the Study ref. points to the Harvard Annals. This
                  one
                  > > also points to Milton Field 27 abstract and it should point to
                  Milton
                  > > Field 9.
                  > >
                  > > ... hope this is doing some good.
                  > >
                  > > Rick
                  > >
                  > > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "rcdegraeve" <rcdegraeve@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hello Chris,
                  > > >
                  > > > I apologize for not including the info in my original post but
                  I
                  > > > wasn't sure it would be okay.
                  > > >
                  > > > Anyway...
                  > > >
                  > > > My interest is mostly an Miras and SRs. Looking into some SRs
                  in
                  > > > Cephus I came across an what may be inaccurate info in VSX for
                  AN
                  > > CEP
                  > > > (haven't had time to look into any more). The "Study ref." in
                  the
                  > > > database notes "C.Payne-Gaposchkin HA 118, N27, 1952." Now,
                  this
                  > > > information as text only is correct as far as it goes (since it
                  > > > doesn't reference the field). The problem seems to be where it
                  > > > points. When following the hot spot, it takes you to the
                  abstract
                  > > for
                  > > > Milton Field 27, which covers stars in Hydra, Leo and Sextans.
                  > > > Digging a little deeper in the Harvard Annals, I found that,
                  though
                  > > > AN CEP is, indeed, in vol 118, No. 27, it is in the abstract
                  for
                  > > > Milton Field 1, not 27. I'm guessing it could be a
                  > > misinterpertation
                  > > > of the "N27".
                  > > >
                  > > > It could be possible that I'm misinterperting what I see but I
                  > > > thought I'd bring it up the the discussion group. I hope this
                  > > doesn't
                  > > > send anyone off on any wild goose chases!
                  > > >
                  > > > Rick De Graeve
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In vsx-dis@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Watson" <skygeex@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hi Rick,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > To tell you the truth, I'd rather you didn't save the details
                  for
                  > > > > actual submission. Please give me an example of what you're
                  > > talking
                  > > > > about. If this is a systemic problem, I'll want to find a
                  back-
                  > > end
                  > > > > solution to it, rather than relying on user submissions of
                  > > corrected
                  > > > > data. If it's something very localized, then user
                  submissions
                  > > may
                  > > > be
                  > > > > OK. But I'd like to make that decision first. So please
                  show me
                  > > > what
                  > > > > you've got. Thanks!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Christopher Watson
                  > > > > Principal Architect
                  > > > > VSX
                  > > > >
                  > > > > On 5/2/07, rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@> wrote:
                  > > > > > I'm wondering about how to submit what I guess amounts to
                  data
                  > > > > > corrections to VSX. Reading through the guidelines, they
                  seem
                  > > to
                  > > > focus
                  > > > > > on submission of a new variable star and what/how to
                  include
                  > > > supporting
                  > > > > > data.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > In looking through VSX and some of the reference
                  information
                  > > > cited in
                  > > > > > an entry, I've found a nested inaccuracy in the Study ref.
                  data
                  > > > entry.
                  > > > > > It's probably a just a small detail (and maybe I'm reading
                  it
                  > > > wrong)
                  > > > > > but I know you want the database to be as accurate as
                  > > possible.
                  > > > I'll
                  > > > > > save the details for actual submission, but I'm not too
                  clear
                  > > on
                  > > > how to
                  > > > > > go about this.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Thanks for your help!
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Rick De Graeve
                  > > > > > AAVSO - DGR
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                • Patrick Wils
                  Hi Rick, You probably best send those errors to Chris and/or me. You may choose when to send them, I don t have a preference. For some of the GCVS references
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Rick,

                    You probably best send those errors to Chris and/or me. You may choose
                    when to send them, I don't have a preference.
                    For some of the GCVS references there isn't a bibcode or link-out in VSX
                    yet, either because it does not exist or because we haven't found one. If
                    you find some of these, let us know as well.

                    Thanks for your efforts.

                    Patrick

                    --- rcdegraeve <rcdegraeve@...> wrote:

                    > I will most likely continue digging in the database. So... Is noting
                    > the discrepancies here in the discussion database the preferred
                    > method for getting the information to you? Would an email be better?
                    > Also would you prefer that I hold all of the errors of this nature I
                    > find until I am finished. Assuming I find more of these errors, I
                    > want to be sure I do this in the way you most prefer.
                    >
                    > Thanks!
                    > Rick


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.