Testers wanted


Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 173198

Guest
Morning Philip!

I had the pleasure of testing both systems and found the second was far more successful than the originally (this page) posted on the 24th May.

I know (this page) is still under construction but there needs to be more work and imput, such as the year of death I noticed is down for the 1910's when in actual fact a lot of the vitcims of the dead in 1912, were either listed as persumed drowned, or possibly missing.

My enquiries where only done brief, but when I have more time on my hands this afternoon I shall invariably want to test the (this page) and see what else does emerges out of the blue.

Otherwise I can see no reason why this new methord of research should be introduced as a useful tool to help any newcomer or novices alike.

Andrew W.
 

Philip Hind

Editor
Staff member
Member
Sep 1, 1996
1,767
76
323
England
Hello,

as the year of death I noticed is down
for the 1910's when in actual fact a lot of the vitcims of the dead in 1912, were either listed as persumed drowned, or possibly missing.


Not quite sure what your point is. Wouldn't someone who died in the disaster have died in the 1910s? Or are you suggesting that they shouldn't be listed as dead because they are only presumed drowned??
 
D

Deleted member 173198

Guest
Hello Phil,

I've just this minute tried the (this page) with two of the Crew names......Arthur Ward and Harold Phillimore. Ward is listed as persumed drowned or missing, whereas Phillimore survived.

I would have thought the best way to list the dead is to use the appropriate word Missing inside of Persumed drowned. Its just my outlook of showing a bit of respect and courtesy for the dead. As oppose to the (this page) I found the whole venture and feedback confusing. One vadid point to note here, why have you got Engineers listed and no mentioning of Bedroom Stewards? Hence possibly that's why nothing came up for Phillimore!

Wouldn't someone who died in the disaster have died in the 1910s? Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why I didn't get what I was looking for because the disaster is listed under the 1910s, and maybe this is the whole cause of all the troubles encounter.

This is only a suggestion Phil, but is there anyway you can transfer the disaster year to 1912, inside of 1910s, and then maybe we can see what will develop afterwards.

Andrew W.
 

Philip Hind

Editor
Staff member
Member
Sep 1, 1996
1,767
76
323
England
Hi Andrew,

Some slight confusion here.

Firstly the database *only* includes passengers (crew are coming), some of whom were engineers which would indicate the presence of that catogory in the occupations list.

Secondly, not all the occupations have been attached to the relevant people - I am working on that at the moment, so some job catogories might give no results even when we know they should.

Thirdly the birth and death date search is only general at the moment. Obviously everyone who died on the Titanic, died (we presume!) in 1912 but as a first step it seemed more sensible to provide broad dates with which to extract passenger data ie. "give me all the survivors that died in the 1970s".

There is nothing to stop us including a search box to enable the search to enter a specific date but I haven't put this in yet. You will however have noticed (from the passenger summaries) that the exact date of death is available to us and is not simply listed as 1910s or 1920s.

Incidentally, I wouldn't use the term presumed drowned because it isn't presumed that those that died actually drowned, one might presume they died of hyperthermia. Because this is unknown the cause of death is simply listeed as "Titanic Disaster" I thought of having "shipwreck" but the former method provides another means of calling up victims of this one incident whereas "shipwreck as a cause of death would return others - especially when the crew come online.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Phil
 
Mar 28, 2002
1,015
13
233
Hello Phil,

Is it possible to have a field to show who each passenger was travelling with, eg. Elisabeth Allen was travelling with Mrs Edward Scott Robert and Georgette Madill. You wouldn't know this unless you went into their biography. If this isn't practical, how about a "tick box" or similar, with Travelling "Alone", "Family", "Friends". I KNOW this is taking the mickey somewhat!

Cheers,

Boz
 
Sep 12, 2000
1,513
6
313
Phil,

I think your selection of 13 is a wise selection Phil and again, love this feature.

"On ages, I haven't yet found a way of working out how to include 9m, 11m etc in the ages unless you can cope with 0.7 years or something like that. I am sure there is a way around this but at present those ages are rounded up or down with an indication in the notes."

I am not an expert in Access, but I do believe that if the age field is treated as a number which makes number searches and age ranges easier to track, then 9m, 11m etc will not work as "M" is an invalid character.

But if this is the case and can not be used, then one would think that using 0.9 would be a choice. But using 0.9 will not work well either as when you have 0.9 and 0.11, the 0.9 will be of a higher value than 0.11. But perhaps using 0.nn type of format may work, with nine months being .09 and eleven months being 0.11. I have no idea how the "adding" of these figures can be set for your age ranges though to calculate 0.11 plus 0.01 as becoming 1.0.

But a solution could be to set another box for age for children under the age of 2 with whole numbers 1-23 or under the age of 1 with whole numbers 1-11 for a month box. This would allow calcuations of the whole numbered month box from 1-11 and adding a 12 as an incremental year addition to the year box. But ask someone with experience in Access. I am no one.

Child ages are many times reflected in months, but often after 2 years it stops.At least in the US that seems to be true. Like an 18m old or a child 20m old, but you rarely hear of a a 35m old, they are usually nearly 3 or 2 1/2 years.

You may want to indicate near the child selection that it is a person under 13 (13 an under) or whatever. Although the US had children in factories at that time as well, many today have children in college that may never work.
 
P

Patricia Everett

Guest
I like the format and would like you to add crew & worker information as well.Thanks!!! pat
 
D

Deleted member 173198

Guest
Hi Phil,

Right, that would explain things why I had the misfortunes of experiencing the troubles this morning, as well as this afternoon.

I'll wait until the Crew details are up and running!

Cheers

Andrew W.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads