http://bit.ly/buOxpd

Tons of similar stories on right margin of these articles.

It's not surprising given the immensity of this facility, but I think the
article is actually incorrect when it faults the analog/paper records as the
reason for the error.  

Having had to locate family remains in numerous facilities that have records
going back to the mid-1800s myself, I found their paper systems which are
all coordinate and section based, extremely accurate.  Naturally the fact
that they're paper and they rely on a dual or triple indexing systems for
'finding aids' it takes time to find stuff, but they can find it.  The only
time there's problems is when someone forgets to make an entry in the log
books or when the facility (for whatever WEIRD reason) decides to renumber
sections/plots.

I've also consulted with a number of cemeteries (because I found their
records systems sort of fascinating, especially reading through the old
bound log books) and I can tell you, although they're much smaller, the
records were extremely accurate! In most cases, they have pie shaped or
rectangular shaped segments that are broken into logical units and they mark
them off until they're gone and they have books that leave blank spaces
until they're 'occupied' and then the spaces are filled in... and when
they're gone, they're gone.  THAT's what surprised me about the "double
booking" at Arlington- if the book says there's no room at the inn, then you
don't rent a room.  

If you're doing it electronically there's a better chance of a boo-boo by an
errant entry or a transposition of characters, but when you fill in an entry
in a  book, it's done.  Just like filling the blocks on a Monopoly Board.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]