Thanks for the responses.  Unfortunately, my museum is not in the position
of finding an intern this year.  PastPerfect tech support is looking at it
now, but if they cannot make a batch change, I will have the start the
process myself.  I am very glad you suggested contacting tech support,
Leonard.  I am at a small museum, so it is just 1000 accession records and
11000 object records.  I need to make the change, because networking issues
prevent PastPerfect from running on every computer here, and so I find
myself frequently running reports and exporting lists into excel, which
loses whatever sorting I may have in-program.  Plus, we are running
PastPerfect 4.

Thank you,

Michael R
​.


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Collections Research for Museums <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> There is a setting in PP where you can change the sort from Alpha to
> Numeric and it will sort properly without the leading zeros.  I have
> attached instructions on how to change that.  Try that before you commit to
> a large renumbering project.  A concern that I have about changing the
> numbers in the computer is this:  If the number on the object does not
> match the number in the computer, future staff will have a hard time
> finding the records they are looking for.  You will have to establish a
> written procedure (and staff will need to remember it) for how to enter the
> number when looking for an object.  Just something to consider.
>
> Deaccessioned items:  In the Deaccession module the record is truncated to
> only include the main data--a fraction of what might be in the original
> record, so if the original record HAS been deleted (and you have done a
> reindexing) bringing it back to the main database file from the Deaccession
> Module will not restore the lost data.  If you transfer the data to the
> Deaccession file and, *before permanently deleting the original record
> through a reindexing, *you bring it back from the recycle bin then you
> can maintain the file in the main catalog with a status of Deaccessioned
> and have the truncated record in the Deaccession file.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Peggy
>
> On March 16, 2017 at 10:56 AM Michael Rebman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I am the manager of my institution’s collections database, and the primary
> user.  I have two questions for the collective wisdom related to ease of
> use:
>
>
>
> My institution has a fairly small collection, and it is split almost
> evenly between objects, photographs, and archival groupings.  Object
> numbers started in 1961, and are numbered as [year].[number of the
> accession for that year].[number within that accession] for all objects and
> photographs.  However, prior to 2000 almost all catalog years are two
> digits, with a few exceptions; almost all accession and catalog numbers do
> not have preceding zeroes.  This makes the report maker difficult to use,
> as records are never listed in order and they become a headache when
> exported to excel.  Renumbering the PastPerfect catalog entries to have a
> full year and easy-to-sort accession numbers (for example, 64.1.1 to
> 1964.001.001) would be time-consuming, but would it be worth it?
>
>
>
> Another question I have is related to the Deaccession screen. For those
> that do not use PastPerfect, when the deaccession button is pressed on an
> individual object’s catalog record, the record is deleted, and a
> placeholder is put into a different part of the database.  The deaccession
> screen is difficult to search, and disrupts catalog searches.  Personally,
> I prefer to flag a record’s status to “Deaccessioned” instead of using the
> deaccession button, but a person who worked before me did a mass
> deaccession button clicking.  There are no existing backups of the database
> prior to that event.  Some of the records are duplicates (including at
> least two 64.1.1 records, although I do not know how that happened).
> Should I bring these object records back to the main database, and simply
> flag them as deaccessioned?
>
>
>
> Michael R.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Peggy Schaller
> Collections Research for Museums
> 4830 E Kansas Dr
> Denver, CO 80246
> 303-757-7962
> toll free 1-877-757-7962
> [log in to unmask]
> website: http://www.museumcollectionmgmt.com/
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).