Record Request - Ward Geocode doesn't stick

[lajackson]

You should be able to select one of the stake codes and tell it you want to delete all of them (all the instances of that code). Any duplicates should also go away at that point.

That's just it.....you can't delete the codes. The remove buttons don't work! (At least on the stake computer sitting on the stake clerk desk in the stake clerks office here in wonderful western Colorado)! That is the whole point I have been trying to make!

You are right. You can change them to something else, and if you can delete the new code you enter. When you delete the code you entered, it will revert back to the code that you could not change.

This is a bug.

[lajackson]

. . . if what you are trying to fix doesn't work, get a bigger hammer!

Don't tempt me! [grin]

[coletheelder]

So clearing away some of the mud for me as an Assistant Ward Clerk-Membership, I could use both the Ward Geo Code and the Stake Geo Code field in the ward MLS, without the fear of either getting changed automatically by the Stake. Is that true?

[aebrown]

So clearing away some of the mud for me as an Assistant Ward Clerk-Membership, I could use both the Ward Geo Code and the Stake Geo Code field in the ward MLS, without the fear of either getting changed automatically by the Stake. Is that true?

Correct. No geo codes flow from the stake to the ward.

But because the stake geo code does flow from the ward to the stake in some circumstances, you may want to check with your stake clerk to see if he has any reason you should not freely use the stake code for your own purposes at the ward level.

[rpyne]

You are right. You can change them to something else, and if you can delete the new code you enter. When you delete the code you entered, it will revert back to the code that you could not change.

This is a bug.

Yes, a very old bug. I know I reported it at least three years ago while I was the stake clerk. It was a royal pain when I was geocoding the entire stake in preparation for a boundary realignment that involved three stakes. There were times during the process that the "bigger hammer" idea became very tempting.

[aebrown]

Yes, a very old bug. I know I reported it at least three years ago while I was the stake clerk. It was a royal pain when I was geocoding the entire stake in preparation for a boundary realignment that involved three stakes. There were times during the process that the "bigger hammer" idea became very tempting.

Although it's a bug, I don't see why it's that big of a deal. When you are using MLS to work through the boundary realignment process at the stake level, you have to make sure that every household involved has been assigned a stake geo code. So there's no need to delete a stake geo code -- just set the code to whatever it needs to be.

[rpyne]

Although it's a bug, I don't see why it's that big of a deal. When you are using MLS to work through the boundary realignment process at the stake level, you have to make sure that every household involved has been assigned a stake geo code. So there's no need to delete a stake geo code -- just set the code to whatever it needs to be.

Where it became a big deal was in trying to clear out all of the old codes that had migrated from ward GEO codes. Since the process of adding and verifying the entire stake is so tedious and time consuming, it is nearly impossible to do it in one session. Being able to delete all of the existing codes would make it MUCH easier to keep track of where in the process you are as well as make the new moves that have happened more visible.

[atticusewig]

Do using placeholder codes help ?

For example if a code called "-" or "---" is used ?

On the Stake side:
By having all households with a "-" Stake geocode unless it uses a more permanant code, will this eliminate propogation of the ward-entered Stake geocode filling in the Stake's stake geocode ?

On the ward side:
By entering a "-" code for the stake code on the ward computer will the ward geocode
fill in the stake geocode from the ward geocode, or will it remain as "-" ?
If a "-" code transfers to the Stake machine, it would be easier for the stake to recognize it as not one of their own.

The Stake method, while certainly time-consuming, would seem the best at preventing ward-entered Stake geocodes from mixing with the Stake data. Of course, new move-ins would have to be assigned a "-" code by the Stake before ward entered a code on their side.

- Atticus

[lajackson]

Do using placeholder codes help ?

For example if a code called "-" or "---" is used ?

That would be one way of doing it. Or, as I mentioned earlier, we use a code for each unit in the stake and all records are coded with that geocode when they first show up. We go from there.

[wvpenfold]

My Stake has recently started the realignment process we have had each Ward enter goecodes as outlined by the Stake Presidency. 90% of the time to get the new or changed geocode from the ward we have to do a Request Unit Refresh Data before the changes make it to the Stake MLS. All the computers are running 3.4.0_20025 MLS and contrary to tech support reinstalling MLS does not change anything. Any thought would be appreciated.