Re: Use of codes

Dee Byster-Graham

Dear fellow-listers,


Oh my goodness! All this talk of codes!

Just to be clear, I, for one, will never bother to use them, however ,people who wish to do so, may.

They serve no purpose, as far as I can see, except to add a layer of difficulty for new researchers, folks who have never heard of them, and for those delightful, shy folks who need to ask questions but don’t know how to easily.

Researching one’s family tree can be extremely difficult for anyone, especially when first beginning – I vividly recall my own tentative questions, and trying not to appear too silly in their wording.

Let us retain  a welcoming, helpful attitude, and not make difficulties where none need be for our new seekers.




Searching: MITCHELL: MATHER: MORE: COB: BANNISTER:BULLOCH, and related families.




From: [] On Behalf Of Lindsay Graham
Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2020 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ScotGen] Use of codes


With what are you disagreeing, Anne?  The issue is not whether individuals wish to make use of Chapman codes in their own research (as you and many others do, but many do not) but whether Chapman codes should be compulsory in the headings of emails to this list.  If they are, that forces every reader to become familiar with Chapman codes, an impossible and quite inappropriate requirement.  It would also mean that some emails quoting Chapman codes would simply be ignored by some readers who are not familiar with them.  That would be a great pity.

Realistically, how much extra time does it take one to spell the word out in a single email heading rather than using a 3-letter code that many readers will not recognise?

Lindsay Graham
Canberra, Australia




Join to automatically receive all group messages.