Jump to content


Photo

Double-dating, sorts right, won't calculate age


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 11 February 2015 - 08:18 PM

I would but I have not yet seen any reason to upgrade to RM7. I can tell you that in RM6, December 1580 comes after Feb 1580. OTOH,  Dec 1584 comes before Feb 1584/5. However, it comes after Feb 1584.  I asked the question to learn if RM had fixed that problem with v. 7.


This is how they sort in RM6 (and likely in RM7):

Feb 1580
Dec 1580
Dec 1584
Feb 1584/5

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#22 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 11 February 2015 - 08:23 PM

Feb 1584/5 (the Sort Date for this date becomes Feb 1585)

This makes the resulting dates you've mentioned (in the above post) all chronological by Mmm YYYY

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#23 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1042 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 09:06 AM

Feb 1584/5 (the Sort Date for this date becomes Feb 1585)

This makes the resulting dates you've mentioned (in the above post) all chronological by Mmm YYYY

 

Except that Dec 1580 comes before Feb 1580. It was possible for a child to be born in Dec 1580 and die in Feb 1580, but not the other way around. At least in England, the new year began on March 25th. If RM allowed double dating (e.g. 5 Feb 1580/1) this would not be an issue. This is the reason for allowing double dating before 1583,



#24 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 10:43 AM

Except that Dec 1580 comes before Feb 1580. It was possible for a child to be born in Dec 1580 and die in Feb 1580, but not the other way around. At least in England, the new year began on March 25th.


This is where I guess I'm getting lost in this discussion. RootsMagic doesn't do it "wrong". It just requires that you convert Old Style (O.S.) to New Style (N.S.) ...just as it requires you to enter dates in one of the "supported" date entry formats:

https://en.wikipedia...and_possessions

It appears almost universal (except for your expert U.K. genealogical researchers) that date entries into "modern English-language texts" (as the article states) are done in the New Style (N.S.). This would seem to fit software programs like RootsMagic, too, and although it's support of New Style (N.S.) does not allow for the desire to sort (or display) the Old Style (O.S.) ... it can be documented somewhere else (either in a fact note or the source information or whatever).

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#25 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:39 PM

March 25 1850 - first day of year 1950
April 1850
May 1850
June 1850
July 1850
August 1850
September 1850
October 1850
November 1850
December 1850
January 1950
February 1850
March 1-24, 1850

March 25, 1851 - first day of year 1851
[Repeat rest of months for year 1851]

December 1850/1 or Febuary 1850/1 still leaves me wondering whether the person was born in December 1850 or 1851 or died in February 1850 or 1851.

So to avoid confusion for myself and others, I will enter the date year as 1580 and change the sort date to sort Birth, December 1850 before Death, February 1850
and put a note in the Birth note that these dates are from the Julian calender.

There are many countries that changed to the Gregorian calender with the first of the year being January 1 long before Britain changed in 1752 and some who changed after that. And, there were some countries that used January 1st as the beginning of a new year even though they were using the Julian calendar otherwise before the Gregorian calander was adopted by that country.

Is RootsMagic to assume only dates from the Julian calander as used by Britian are being entered?

#26 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1042 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 01:41 PM

Is RootsMagic to assume only dates from the Julian calander as used by Britian are being entered?

.

 

Roots Magic makes a lot of interesting assumptions* but there is no need to make one in this case. Just allow double dates for Jan-Mar prior to 1583.  The reason they are used by researchers prior to 1583 is to avoid confusion on those months. Also, the original records were sometimes actually written that way because the use of March 25th was not universally followed even at the time. Another solution would be to have OS & NS date qualifiers, just as there is a "BC" qualifier. I happen to believe that double dating is clearer than OS/NS.

 

*As examples of the assumptions RM makes, think about how long it took to discard the assumption that two spouses would always be opposite gender.  I remember that the old mailing list got pretty warm when the subject of same-sex marriages was first broached and I was threatened with being banned for wanting to discuss how to even document a Tibetan polyandrous group marriage (two brothers marry one woman and are shared fathers of any children.)



#27 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 02:08 PM

Percent of users likely to utilize this added option is a corner case.
Edge case users OCCASIONALLY get catered to, corner cases LESS than OCCASIONALLY.
MOST USERS are the REAL programming target (for obvious economical reasons).
 
______________________________________________________________________________
corner ^                                                                      |
case   |                                                                      |
<0.1%  |                                                                      |
------>|                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                          MOST USERS                                  |
 Edge  |                             OF A                                     |
 Case  |                           PRODUCT                                    |
 <2%   |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
       |                                                                      |
_______v______________________________________________________________________|

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#28 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1042 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 02:40 PM

Percent of users likely to utilize this added option is a corner case.
Edge case users OCCASIONALLY get catered to, corner cases LESS than OCCASIONALLY.
MOST USERS are the REAL programming target (for obvious economical reasons).
 .

 

 

I wonder how many RM users actually, really, legitimately use the "BC" date qualifier? Yet RM provides for BC dates.



#29 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 03:14 PM

I wonder how many RM users actually, really, legitimately use the "BC" date qualifier? Yet RM provides for BC dates.


True, but it's not hard to programmatically implement - the maths and sorting are so simple.

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#30 Holm D T

Holm D T

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 10:09 PM

So If I understand I have some one born Dec. 7 1900 or Dec 7 1901  I should use Dec 7 1900/1 not Dec. 7 1900 or Dec 7 1901 that I use now. I use myHeritage and I feel that unless I know the exact date I will not get a hit. Is this right?



#31 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1042 posts

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:14 PM

So If I understand I have some one born Dec. 7 1900 or Dec 7 1901  I should use Dec 7 1900/1 not Dec. 7 1900 or Dec 7 1901 that I use now. I use myHeritage and I feel that unless I know the exact date I will not get a hit. Is this right?

 

First off, the only months ever subject to double dating have been Jan-Mar, because of confusion regarding the day on which one started a new year. I supposed that late Dec is possible because at some time, in some places the year began on Dec 25th. Other dates have been used but are fairly rare by comparison. For the most part this all ends by 1752 but it did actually continue in Russia and Serbia until 1918.



#32 Stewartrb

Stewartrb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 13 February 2015 - 03:51 PM

 

I would but I have not yet seen any reason to upgrade to RM7. I can tell you that in RM6, December 1580 comes after Feb 1580. OTOH,  Dec 1584 comes before Feb 1584/5. However, it comes after Feb 1584.  I asked the question to learn if RM had fixed that problem with v. 7.

 

I tested this out in my RM7.

 

2 Feb 1580 comes before 25 Dec 1580.

 

Dec 1584 comes before Feb 1584/5.