Hi, Rob.
It's looking like no-one is going to
give me a definitive answer to this particular problem . . . although
there have been a
couple of responses here to date, they've been suggestions rather than a
definitive answer.
I think you're expecting more from the newsgroup experience than it's
designed to give. Suggestions from experienced people on how to solve the
questioner's problem is the goal, not the consolation prize. No one who
uses this forum is an employee of a company providing free computer tech
support to everyone with Internet connections. UseNet is peer-to-peer
support from the volunteers in the community at large, so no one is required
to give definitive answers on any topic or to give free labor to fix the
database problems of those having trouble.
If you post a question in a newsgroup and receive a definitive answer, thank
the contributor and consider yourself lucky, because you could just have
easily received WAG's or no responses at all. Replies to your question
could come from a rocket scientist, a 15-year-old high school student, your
neighbor down the street, or someone who deleted the Internet this morning
while trying to get his E-mail to work, but has just discovered he can post
messages on UseNet and is wondering how "Y'all are getting along now that
the Internet is gone." Occasionally, a troll or Lord God King Bufu may stop
by to harrass or offer some advice, but thankfully that doesn't happen very
often in these Access newsgroups.
The Access newsgroups are fortunate in that there are enough experts to give
one or more competent responses, excellent advice, code samples, and links
to relevant Web sites to most of the questions posted here. I can't speak
for other newsgroups, but the folks who respond to questions in the Access
forums are genuinely interested in helping the questioner solve the problem.
This seems to be the case for most of Microsoft's technology-oriented
newsgroups. Unfortunately, the need for assistance is greater than the
voluntary manpower available. With an average of more than 250 new
questions posted daily to the Access newsgroups and ongoing discussions from
previous days, there's a limit to the amount of time any one expert can
devote to assisting with any particular database problem.
The system works fairly well because there are a good number of experts
willing to help others and who know that sharing their level of knowledge
will enrich the community. However, there's no guarantee that definitive
answers will be given for any particular question. If you want a guaranteed
answer, then consider hiring an expert because an expert _can_ guarantee
that you'll be satisfied with his advice -- or your money back.
although 2 of these fields contain
concatenation expressions to join 15 other text fields (potentially this
could lead to over 2000 characters, but in practice it's extremely
unlikely
to do so
"Extremely unlikely" won't cut it. It must be completely impossible. If
even one record exceeds the 2,000 character limit, then the "too many fields
defined" error message will appear.
The formatting of these fields for display is the same in
both the form and the report.
The page layout and spacing of controls may look the same in both the report
and in the form, but the formatting is different. The formatting
characteristics of a report distinguish it from a form. If the formatting
were the same in these two objects, then the two objects would be
interchangeable. They aren't.
BTW, have you seen my other question, re copy/paste of a
record? I've not got a useable answer to that one yet either ;-)
You didn't mention a subform or master/detail tables, but that would be the
easiest way outside of the bookmark bug to pull off the problem you are
encountering. I can think of a few ways for the subform to overwrite the
wrong record when the combo box is used to make selections for the new
record, either by using a fan trap database design, or by using a
misconfigured form/subform combination, or by setting up the relations
incorrectly. Reading current records in the table works fine, but updating
and/or adding new records (depending upon which one of the situations I
mentioned is the cause) causes record overwrite problems. In any case, the
record cursor is not pointing to the record where you think it's pointing
when the paste is made.
Check whether foreign keys are involved in this table and if so, find out
what the values of these foreign keys are before pasting the record, what
the values are for the copied record, and what the values are after pasting
the record. You'll make an interesting discovery, because the mysterious
random record isn't so random after all.
I changed the
subject line here to (hopefully) provoke some curiousity.
The advantage goes to descriptive subject lines. Your new subject line
probably didn't get as much attention as you had hoped for because people
often ignore these types of posts. Too often, they degenerate into
mud-slinging such as the following venom-spewing episode from one irate
poster who didn't get the answer she wanted:
http://groups.google.es/groups?hl=en&lr=&th=f4fb5dd6acb47156&rnum=1
If you want to increase your chances of getting a quick answer to your
question, then consider using Microsoft's Web portal to the newsgroups on
the following Web page to post questions:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...mspx?dg=microsoft.public.access&lang=en&cr=US
In general, the easy-to-answer questions and the clearly stated questions
are answered the quickest. The questions that usually take the longest to
receive the first answer are the questions posted from outside of
Microsoft's Web portal, such as from regular newsreaders (as you've used)
and AccessMonster.com. It seems that more people are willing to answer the
questions posted from Microsoft's Web portal, since a potential reward is
involved. Recognition is received by contributors who are members of the
Web portal community and who have a considerable number of their replies
marked as answers.
Very few questioners have caught on to this phenomenon yet, so questioners
who have a history of marking replies as answers and who post a question
from the Web portal between 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. Eastern time (Zulu - 4) on a
weekday will usually evoke the quickest responses, since the largest pool of
responders is answering these questions.
If you do use the Web portal, be aware that there are a number of bugs which
Microsoft has been working on, so a good number of outages have been
occurring regularly. One of the bugs that hasn't been fixed yet is the
badge indicating a contributor's expertise level (the number of replies
marked as answers by the person who posted the question), so no one in the
Access newsgroups has a badge yet, although several people have earned the
first level badge. The first Access contributor to earn the first level
badge was Kevin Sprinkel, so congratulations to him.
Of note is one particular contributor who started posting replies to
questions several weeks ago and is just about to earn the first level
badge -- which I find rather odd considering the rate of his replies being
marked as answers is twice as fast as our top contributors who have been
contributing their fantastic answers to the newsgroups for many years and
have earned the title of MVP. This would indicate that his answers are far
superior to these world class contributors, so as an Oracle DBA trying to
learn as much as I can about the problems my clients encounter with their
database applications, I did some research to see what more I could learn
about Access from his answers. Far too many of his replies indicate an
inexperienced Access developer, not someone who can "walk the walk," let
alone someone who is world class. So in the future when Microsoft gets the
bug fixed, if you see a badge next to the name of someone posting a reply in
Microsoft's Web portal, just think "caveat emptor."
HTH.
Gunny
See
http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.
(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)
Beware to those who use munged addresses: known newsgroup E-mail harvesters
for spammers are (e-mail address removed) and (e-mail address removed)