So the majority was correct again. Go figure... 


to you Gard

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
So the majority was correct again.

In fact this case was rather simple, and shows that a simple reasoning, as I wrote in first page, allows to find the good solution with a very high probability. Not to say that we cannot be wrong in some odd cases, but after many years of use of this program, all the parsing I have in my database was proven exact after this kind of thread. We can go nowhere waiting for documentation that will please the most sceptical of us, or go ahead with data that an impartial analysis shows to be correct with a high probability.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
We can go nowhere waiting for documentation that will please the most sceptical of us, or go ahead with data that an impartial analysis shows to be correct with a high probability.

Well said.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
We can go nowhere waiting for documentation that will please the most sceptical of us, or go ahead with data that an impartial analysis shows to be correct with a high probability.

Well said.

Indeed.

Thirded and greened.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
So the majority was correct again.

In fact this case was rather simple, and shows that a simple reasoning, as I wrote in first page, allows to find the good solution with a very high probability. Not to say that we cannot be wrong in some odd cases, but after many years of use of this program, all the parsing I have in my database was proven exact after this kind of thread. We can go nowhere waiting for documentation that will please the most sceptical of us, or go ahead with data that an impartial analysis shows to be correct with a high probability.

The problem with your statement is my skepticism comes fromt the FACT that I know far more about naming than thee.             And that isr is a simple FACT.

Skip

I am willing to accept a consistent data position, opending documentation, Rick. that is not hard. I am not interested in somebody;s GUESS, just consistent entry pending documentation. If you want to GUESS and can provide doc to back it up, simply add it to your notes, it's not hard. I have never said that a start point will be correct in all cases, but then again as ken has noted we are not after "correct" names. Consistent beginning improve the database ultimately, simply because it ios entered in the same form by ALL, not by SOME, they system that is being followed now is why we have a broken link system.
This is not hard to understand. I have never and will never argue documentation, I will only say that the more we have the merrier and the more likely we are to be correct, take the Tomas hade Church as a case in point, where the OP relied ONLY on Wiki,  aknown source of questionable accuracy and further data revealed a conflict and a more likely answer.

It's not about CORRECT, Rick, it's simply about consistency. I have never nor will I ever say a given parsing is correct, without data K/B/R is certainly possible, but it is not unreasonable as a starting point. As long as users continue to apply their best guesses we will never be able to get ken's linking to function, now to some that is not importtant, to me it's not personally, but i recognize the problem and understand where part of the rpoblem originates and that is bbecause manty don't care about the linking system and are not willing to take the steps that are necessary to make it work.

I don't believe or disbeliev any particular parsing without documentation. I am merely trying to get a consistent place from which to start. And as i have said AND explained sans documentation, 1/2/3 is the more neutral position and the one which is easier to move from with diocumentation. Guesses if we want  the linking system to work are out of the question. Now like sdaid I don't care about the linking, so if you gy=uuys don't either then we can continue with everybody doing whatever he wants, just understand that the price you are exacting from those who do want the link system to function.

Forum Moderator: Keep it civil
Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
It's not about CORRECT, Rick, it's simply about consistency

I usually side on entering CORRECT information. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I am shocked at your inability to understand the simplest of data concepts, rick...but maybe not surprised.

...really