Scandi Delights - discussion

[effCup]

This thread is for discussion of matters relating to the Scandi Delights id project thread. Please post any discussion/comments/etc. here and not there, thanks.

[beutelwolf]

82/83 is Helle Kjaer

0143 is also this:

She might be Leila Vigso

000171 might be Jane Warner, hard to tell

000205 is Pia Fris

2501 is Tina Preston
2528/2530 is Claire Margarson

001184 is Pauline Lee

001364/5 seems to be Trine Michelsen

[effCup]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

2528/2530 is Claire Margarson

Firstly: I recommend downloading the text file(s) linked in the thread & import them into a spreadsheet app (e.g. MS Excel, OfficeLibre Calc, google docs, etc.). A great many models are already named. That will help save some of the eyestrain.

2528 is Maria Berggren (aka Amy Bishop). That's what the doc. says but also I recognised her, i.e. a known set of hers--see some pics. from Model Directory in her thread.
I haven't got round to checking it yet but 2530 is listed as Claire Margarson and I don't doubt you.

Secondly: don't rely upon the model ids given in the text docs. A great many are probably correct but I've already been burnt by a couple that were not/I wasn't sufficiently careful about. So: eyestrain not entirely dispensed.

I don't envisage needing to spend too much time id'ing many of the models as a consequence. Maybe we'd be better to devote more of our attention to: a) those that are incorrectly id'd b) those for whom an id is not already known/we don't recognise? /shrug/ Just a suggestion.

Not all sets numbered/listed are present. There are gaps.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

Firstly: I recommend downloading the text file(s) linked in the thread & import them into a spreadsheet app (e.g. MS Excel, OfficeLibre Calc, google docs, etc.). A great many models are already named. That will help save some of the eyestrain.

Sorry, I didn't read all the text, and failed to spot the existence of that file. I only noticed that images were identified within the picture.

2528 is Maria Berggren (aka Amy Bishop). That's what the doc. says but also I recognised her, i.e. a known set of hers--see some pics. from Model Directory in her thread.
I haven't got round to checking it yet but 2530 is listed as Claire Margarson and I don't doubt you.

I was referring to the one on the left, not the right. Even in the text file there is a reference to Margarson as 2528:

922 2528 CLAIRE MARGARSON 91 "beach and rocks, red bikini, eating fruit. British dark blonde"

It's very frustrating about the original source that leading 0s make a difference.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

Sorry, I didn't read all the text, and failed to spot the existence of that file. I only noticed that images were identified within the picture.



I was referring to the one on the left, not the right. Even in the text file there is a reference to Margarson as 2528:

922 2528 CLAIRE MARGARSON 91 "beach and rocks, red bikini, eating fruit. British dark blonde"

It's very frustrating about the original source that leading 0s make a difference.

Yes, sorry. My bad. Excel stripped the leading zeros from the file as I was organising it. Do I need to re-do the text to preserve all the leading zeros? That would be a right pita because although I have the original text the leading-zero-stripping happened right at the beginning of the process, i.e. I'd have to re-do all the formatting, cleaning, etc. Yikes. I'll say no for now but... maybe later, maybe.

[40plus]

Originally Posted by effCup

Yes, sorry. My bad. Excel stripped the leading zeros from the file as I was organising it. Do I need to re-do the text to preserve all the leading zeros? That would be a right pita because although I have the original text the leading-zero-stripping happened right at the beginning of the process, i.e. I'd have to re-do all the formatting, cleaning, etc. Yikes. I'll say no for now but... maybe later, maybe.

Try highlighting the relevant column in Excel and formatting it as plain text. Although Excel assumes it's a number when importing, it usually retains the whole string and just defaults to number format.

If that doesn't work, try editing one of the number fields adding ' at the front and see if it displays the leading zeros.


Regards

40+

[effCup]

Originally Posted by 40plus

Try highlighting the relevant column in Excel and formatting it as plain text. Although Excel assumes it's a number when importing, it usually retains the whole string and just defaults to number format.

If that doesn't work, try editing one of the number fields adding ' at the front and see if it displays the leading zeros.


Regards

40+

The original text is just that: text. It is not (properly) delimited. It is not columns (at that stage). If I go back to the stage where Excel first encounters the text & (wants to) strip the leading zeros, then I'm losing an awful lot of "tidying" & formatting of that text. I used some regex prev. but a lot of the text is too "loose"/irregular for that to cover all the formatting/cleaning required.

I know, "plan to throw one away..."
Fred was Right, said Fred.

Perhaps I should upload the original (un-cleaned) text, so you can see it yourself... & perhaps have a go.

[effCup]

Re. the loss of leading zeros (due to Excel):

I've been re-looking at the raw data & have improved my regular expressions so that it'd be a bit less manual work to re-do the data into columns (mostly), but the thing is that I think the only way to prevent Excel stripping the leading zeros is to put a ' before them, and unlike where one does that manually within Excel, if I do that to the text file prior to importing into/opening with Excel (that's the only reasonable/manageable way, given the quantity), then they remain visible within excel. That is: Excel then doesn't treat them as "special" characters. So: that way keeps the leading zeros but also prepends a '. So I still wonder whether it's really worth all the effort of re-doing the data?

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

Re. the loss of leading zeros (due to Excel):

I've been re-looking at the raw data & have improved my regular expressions so that it'd be a bit less manual work to re-do the data into columns (mostly), but the thing is that I think the only way to prevent Excel stripping the leading zeros is to put a ' before them, and unlike where one does that manually within Excel, if I do that to the text file prior to importing into/opening with Excel (that's the only reasonable/manageable way, given the quantity), then they remain visible within excel. That is: Excel then doesn't treat them as "special" characters. So: that way keeps the leading zeros but also prepends a '. So I still wonder whether it's really worth all the effort of re-doing the data?

I found this when googling (actually: bing-ing) the issue:

Note: When Excel opens a .csv file, it uses the current default data format settings to interpret how to import each column of data. If you want more flexibility in converting columns to different data formats, you can use the Import Text Wizard. For example, the format of a data column in the .csv file may be MDY, but Excel's default data format is YMD, or you want to convert a column of numbers that contains leading zeros to text so you can preserve the leading zeros. To force Excel to run the Import Text Wizard, you can change the file name extension from .csv to .txt before you open it, or you can Import a text file by connecting to it.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

you want to convert a column of numbers that contains leading zeros to text so you can preserve the leading zeros. To force Excel to run the Import Text Wizard, you can change the file name extension from .csv to .txt before you open it, or you can Import a text file by connecting to it.

Aha! The mistake I made when importing before was still treating the fields as "General" rather than "text". Another MS wizard implicit behaviour "feature".

OK, I guess it's now worthwhile to re-do the data. /sigh!/

edit: new archive now uploaded, lnk in same place in other thread.