GenTips-L Archives

Archiver > GenTips > 1998-12 > 0912826473


From: "Kevin L. Becker" <>
Subject: Re: UNKNOWN SOUNDEX RULE
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:54:33 -0500


So, if there's this secret rule that nobody's using, and you generate
a "proper" Soundex number that no one else gets by using whatever
Soundex generating tool they have ... how does your "correct" number
help you find the party you're looking for?

Also ... If this rule is so unknown today, is that because the correct
rule's been lost over time (in which case you can rely on Soundex
codes from the past being generated properly), or is it likely that
the census takers in ages past would have also not used this rule?

Just curios, not trying to pick a fight.

klb
B e c k e r U n r u h M c Q u i n H a r r i s H a w k i n s

-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: UNKNOWN SOUNDEX RULE

Today, I read an interesting article about an unknown Soundex rule
that may
effect about 1% of population. It is: "that if two or more equivalent
key
letters appear separated by an h or w, the two or more letters are
encoded
as one letter, i.e., by a single number."

Example: Ashcroft correctly encoded is A261, NOT A226 produced "by
Soundex
rules which omit the unknown rule."
Another example given was for the surname SCHKLAR...Correct Soundex
code is
S460, not S246....last example: ACHZEHNER is A256 not A225.

According to the article, even the NARA Soundex machine does not use
this
rule...Just thought I would pass this along for others like me who
never have
heard or read about this Soundex rule.

This thread: