From: Adrian <gra...@ju...> - 2008-04-20 09:46:21
|
This is interesting, I must investigate one strain in my db as on the webcal out put I have a couple celebrating their 209th wedding anniversary! Aw Bless! :) Adrian On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 00:07 -0400, Douglas S. Blank wrote: > Nothing really to add to help, but a couple of notes; I think that these > are correct: > > 1) The algorithm and function called probably_alive is really a sorta > possibly_alive, as it is optimistic but recursive. If it can't find any > evidence to the contrary, it assumes a person is alive. > > 2) Currently the Age on Date Gramplet uses a more direct algorithm. If it > can't compute an age directly, it doesn't include someone. (Strangely, on > a test in my database this matched 271 people whereas probably_alive only > matched 261. I guess the recursion helps to eliminate, but there could be > a bug there...) > > 3) The word LIVING should be replaced in the code with the phrase of the > user's choice by using some of the config options; see Preferences -> > Text. I don't think many reports have been converted to many of those yet. > > 4) Rather than relying on the probably_alive algorithm, people can use the > Calculate Estimated Date tool (under Tools -> Database Processing) to > automatically compute these dates, and then adjust as needed. Currently, > the tool uses the same algorithm as probably_alive, but it will eventually > get better (and take longer as it will be more thorough). It is faster to > have an actual birth/date event rather than recursively trying to > estimating one. > > -Doug |