DBSIG: German Pork Butchers in Britain - who can change it ??

[0113vanny]

but what happens if a submitter leaves this earthly life?   can anyone take over the family details?

[Histres]

Hi Vanny,
I think this question can be answered by Berlin Bob. I'm sure the data won't get lost (the Internet doesn't forget anything) and the moderator can create arrangements that descendants or other entitled people can get access.

Histres

[Berlin-Bob]

We also had some discussions about this here:

DBSIG: German Pork Butchers
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=613454.0

without coming up with a satisfactory solution 

Some ideas so far:

[A 'submitter' is someone who submits i.e. enters a record, regardless of whether s/he is actually researching this family.
'A researcher' is someone researching this family. The 'submitter' may or may not also be a 'researcher']

1) the 'submitter' "authorises" other 'researchers' to edit his submissions (Berlin-Bob)

2) topic with DBSIG corrections (SwissGill)
Topic could get unwieldy; needs an administrator to prune it after corrections have been made.

3) A comments/corrections field in the database where anybody can list corrections (Histres)
The submitter can then edit the relevant fields, and delete the correction note.  A bit like a "post-it" note. I would suggest only allowing registered 'researchers' to add corrections and comments.

Following up on another idea from Histres ...
Suppose a record about Müller (#1234) has been submitted by someone who is not actually researching this name.
A 'researcher' now submits a record about this same person (#4321)

Comments could like these could also be added here
- "this is the same person as record #4321 , please only add comments there"
- "all data from this record has now been added to record #4321. Please delete this record"
- etc.


Feedback on the above, other ideas ??

Gruß,
Bob

[Berlin-Bob]

1) the 'submitter' "authorises" other 'researchers' to edit his submissions (Berlin-Bob)

As a variation of this:  anybody who adds themselves to a record as "researcher" can then edit the record.  Or is this too open to abuse ? Is it better to stick to the original idea, that the submitters have to authorise access first, before others can change 'their' records?

[SwissGill]

2) topic with DBSIG corrections (SwissGill)
Topic could get unwieldy; needs an administrator to prune it after corrections have been made.

I fail to understand why, although I suggested it only as a temporary measure.

[Berlin-Bob]

Hi Gill,

I was referring to this bit. 

After you have all made up your minds on what you think is feasible, the thread could be deleted or integrated?

A corrections topic would be on-going and not necessarily chronological (comment about person A; correction about person A; comment about person B; Correction for preson B; etc, but would depend on how often comments are made, and how often the submitters read the topic. If the "completed" corrections aren't deleted, the topic would become very unwieldy, and after 24 hours, a moderator would have to edit the topic.

My favourite at the moment is
3) A comments/corrections field in the database where anybody can list corrections (Histres)
as this would be direct in the database.

Bob

[SwissGill]

Hi Bob

Everything clear now!

I think Histres' idea with a comments / corrections field would also be my favourite.

Gill

[sugarbakers]

Sorry to butt in, but I've been reading both PB discussion topics with much interest.

Regarding this problem with corrections ... why the discussion? Other than the odd typo, there shouldn't be a need for corrections. If the database only contains referenced/verifiable facts, why should these need correcting or changing?

* That Claus Reincke was married in Dewsbury 1892 is a fact that will never need correction.

* That Claus Reincke is listed in the Leeds Directory 1896, and that Claus Rienke is listed in the Parish Registers 1895, are both facts, and even though you know that one of them is mis-spelt they should be written as two separate entries.

* That Gt Grandma says that Claus Reincke came from Gerabronn is not a fact whilst it remains unproven, and so has no place on the database.

Bryan.

[Berlin-Bob]

Good point, but maybe the word "corrections" was the wrong one to use.  As I understand it, there are several "submitters" who submit details of any pork butchers they find, and there are "researchers" who submit details of their families, and then there are some who recognise that one of the submitted entries is one of their ancestors and would like to add some details the original submitter didn't know. Or vice versa.

Perhaps "additions" or "additional details" would be a better description here.

regards,
Bob