Re: Use of codes

Anne Burgess

I have 50,000+individuals in my tree. For every single one the county/state/country/province etc is abbreviated using Chapman codes. Assuming that the average full name is 9 letters, that's one-third of the typing, 50,000+ times. That's a lot of typing, and a lot of time, and a lot of damage to my arthritic fingers avoided.

I don't mind whether they are compulsory or not, but I have used the full county name in the titles of my two Scottish lists.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Lindsay Graham
Sent: 06 February 2020 06:27
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

On 6/2/20 0956, Anne Burgess via Groups.Io wrote:

I absolutely disagree. You soon learn the ones you use regularly. I almost never need to look up a UK code. And it's a lot less pain to look up an occasional code than to type out 'Ross and Cromarty' (17 keystrokes) or 'Montgomeryshire' (16) instead of 'ROC' or 'MGY' (just 3 each). That's why they were invented - to save typing.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.