Reformatting & MM Numbering - Opinions?

[Luke H]

I am toying with the idea of re-jigging my Martin Marsh albums to improve referencing and most importantly their searchability on the forum.

Adopting the KK method of assigning numbers seems practical and fitting. Helpfully Marsh already assigned numbers to his wares, so for example MM1164 is a Leicestershire Imperial Yeomanry.

Searches in the ‘Picture Gallery’ section appear to allow shorter search terms than the main forum which must be a minimum of 4 characters.

So insertion of a MM reference number on each individual picture should make it searchable. This could take the format MM01 - MM09 to enable searching on lower digit numbers which would otherwise be unsearchable on the wider forum.

Taking it further the MM albums and nos. could also be cross-referenced with my burgeoning ‘House of Gaunt’ album (soon to get an extension) to show a physical example of his badges away from the black and white photocopies.

I would also need to type out his glossary in either an album or more likely a thread to help members locate the MM number sought. Alphabetical format may be best since MM catalogues 1,724 badges, albeit, many are doubles or trebles?

The pros - it should make individual badges of his wares easily searchable. Allow cross-referencing of actual examples to see the finer details - or often lack of!

The cons - with just under 1,130 MM pictures to update plus the HoG and to create an alphabetical glossary it’s a mammoth and possibly never ending undertaking. Also there are often more than one fake or repro die for each badge so this wouldn’t be a one stop shop for determining authenticity.

1. Does this sound like a good idea?

And

2. Most importantly, would it be useful?

Any input of feedback on the format welcome.