GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2004-06 > 1088275753


From: Michel Vuijlsteke <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Setting Living? (Kathy's proposal)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:49:19 +0200
References: <20040626183800.47645.qmail@web53904.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040626183800.47645.qmail@web53904.mail.yahoo.com>


Write me up for "assume deceased".

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Ron Bernier
<> wrote:
>
> I prefer the idea of "assume deceased".
>
> Ron Bernier
>
>
>
> "William T. Flight" <> wrote:
> In short, your proposal is to change the default living status in absence of
> birth date/death date/living flag to "deceased".
>
> I think this is a good idea. The individuals likely to be missing birth
> dates are the ones far back in your tree, not your living relatives. Also, a
> living relative who has no birth date entered isn't likely to have other
> information that you would want to keep private anyway. At any rate, it
> would probably be less work to enter missing birth dates for all your living
> relatives than enter estimated birth dates for all your deceased relatives.
>
> It does mean, from the standpoint of privacy, we would be moving away from a
> "conservative" guess (assumed living when not sure) to a "most likely" guess
> (assumed deceased when not sure).
>
> Other opinions? If people feel strongly both ways, I guess I could make the
> default assumption a preferences choice.
>
> --Bill
>
> William T. Flight
> http://www.thoughtfulcreations.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Lenerz [mailto:]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:49 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Setting Living? (explained, enhanced)
> >
> > William T. Flight wrote:
> > > As it stands now, yes. If an individual has no birth or
> > death date, the
> > > default assumption is living.
> > >
> > > Another idea would be to make "living" into a true toggle
> > with "deceased",
> > > then add a "locked" flag that indicates whether the user is
> > forcing the
> > > status value (lock flag set) or the value is being
> > generated by the default
> > > algoritm (lock flag not set). An advantage of this approach
> > is that the
> > > "living/deceased" status for all individuals would be
> > available on custom
> > > individual reports, both for reporting and filtering.
> >
> > Now that I understand it clearly . . .
> > A concern with the current algorithms is that it forces me to
> > enter phony
> > data, albeit only _sort_ dates for individuals with no
> > birthdates. I know
> > others (Michel, where are you?) have similar concerns about
> > data integrity.
> > From my perspective, a system where the Living flag has
> > priority over the
> > "When no death event" preference is a better one (e.g., your second
> > suggestion).
> >
> > I think something like the following would work well:
> >
> > DOES IT PRINT/EXPORT?
> >
> > LIVING FLAG
> >
> > X 0
> > ---------------
> > | | |
> > MISSING | N | Y |
> > B |---------------|
> > I | | |
> > R <1904 | N | Y |
> > T |---------------|
> > H* | | |
> > >=1904 | N | N |
> > ---------------
> >
> > *assuming no death date
> >
> > Just my thoughts. . . and I appreciate your looking at this,
> > Kathy
>
> ==== GENBOX Mailing List ====
> To join this list, send an email to with the word "subscribe" as the subject line. Then email your messages to and they will appear on this list.
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
> ==== GENBOX Mailing List ====
> To join this list, send an email to with the word "subscribe" as the subject line. Then email your messages to and they will appear on this list.
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>

This thread: