TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-04 > 0986157074


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Numbering photographs
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:31:14 -0400
References: <48.13af3b85.27f7e38a@aol.com><48.13af3b85.27f7e38a@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <apeectgr5r3hfj3hei318asp5t30t9autl@4ax.com>


Jim Patrick wrote:
>IMO the _only_ system is non-significant or sequential numbers.
>This is an opinion shared by several major (USA) archives. Assign
>number "10000001" to the first photo, "10000002" to the second photo,
>etc.

The only real drawback to this system is that you MUST have an index to
determine which photo is which. Other systems allow you to know what a
certain photo is from the number assigned (with exceptions). Thus an
index is probably also needed for other systems as well, but for the coded
system the user may be able to know what some of the photos are.

The question is which does the user prefer. Personally, I like the four
character code plus a four digit number combination. The first three
characters is a family surname code, the fourth character may be an
initial or just a letter or number code. This allows me to have well over
1000 photos per family and conceivably as much as 99,999. If I run out of
numbers this way, I will likely have too many photos anyway. As for the
problems of two families in the same photo, I just assign the code for the
family that I am working with at the time.

----------
Lee Hoffman/KY
E-mail:
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
--------------
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)

This thread: