Ted,

One of two (similar) ways.

First, I would presume that as new members are added they are given a
membership number in sequence. In which case it is easy to say that since
'you' had it I have added numbers 'x' through 'y'.

Second, add a URN (unique reference number). This is a very useful
addition. It is not always easy to sort on family names. Foreign names
come in various 'strange' formats which upset the system. The Scottish
Macs and Mcs, the Irish O', not to mention the French De come to mind not to
mention others from further afield. This can be addressed by adding a
field for sorting incorporating the first five significant characters of the
family name. The URN makes this much easier. Again it would be easy to say
that since 'you' had it I have added numbers 'x' through 'y'.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions

"Ted Rogers" wrote in message
...
Thank you for that reply Bill. I have explained all that and it's fallen
on deaf ears!

I have established that the other person does not change the original data
in any way so she just adds new members. the problem is that due to the
sorting (by surname) it is not easy to see which ones have been added. Is
it possible to easily show which records have been added? (maybe by
conditional formatting?

Thank you for your kind help,

Ted
"Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message
...
It is always bad practice to have a file 'open' for amendment to more
than one person at a time. It creates all sorts of problems around the
question "what is the latest".

As a compromise if 'another person' ONLY adds new members (with their
unique membership number) it should be easy to add these back into your
friend's database. There should, however, be a very clear working
understanding that your friend should not change any of the 'original'
data (not one character or digit) as any changes will not be transferred
onto the main database and be lost. It will be very difficult not to
succumb to making a minor change, the whole thing cannot be monitored and
any lost changes will be the fault of the other one. It is a compromise
that is rather flaky and one which I would definitely not recommend.

A much better solution would be for all updates to the database to be
sent to the one person who operates the database. In this way there is
no duplication or misunderstanding and responsibility for the database
(and also consider data protection requirements) rests squarely on one
person.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
Computer Solutions

"Ted Rogers" wrote in message
...
I have been asked to try and solve a problem that a friend has. (Please
try and ignore the workflow - I have suggested other ways of doing it but
he won't have it!). He has a spreadsheet containing around 1500 entries.
These consist of club members with an exclusive reference number each. My
friend is responsible for the overall membership but sends a copy of the
file to another person who operates within it month to month. At the end
of the period the file is sent back to my friend with new members etc.
and my friend then wants to import it into his file (which he has been
amending at the same time)

What he would like to do is to import this file, avoid duplications and
highlight in some way the new members (by maybe colouring the lines) to
distinguish them from old ones (the entries are sorted by surname so new
entries could appear in the middle of the sheet).

I hope this is clear, I know he's be better off using Access but he's
been using this for years and wants to do it this way. Is it possible
please?

Many thanks,

Ted