Which is the easiest way to find things?

[sharon sanders]

Which is easier:

Countries broken into continents and then listed alphabetically, or

Countries listed all together by alphabetical order?

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

My perspective ...

Countries listed by continent helps people understand the relationship between countries in different geographic regions of the world. A master alphabetized list of countries of the world will only be beneficial to those with a degree in world geography.
</IMG>

 

[Sally Furniss]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

Countries grouped into continents or regions and then listed alphabetically.

 

[Theresa42]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

Countries grouped into continents or regions and then listed alphabetically.

Yes -- I like this, too.

Just a note that the U.N., WHO and (presumably) other NGOs break out the nations of the world into regions -- and then alphabetical lists of countries within those regions. I've always thought it useful to follow their lead -- just makes keeping tab on the news, developmenbts, etc., easier given that the WHO & other organizations' divisions/departments (and their websites) are often regionally based:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

 

[sharon sanders]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

I am neutral but I voted one way so that I could see the poll results.

 

[Nancy]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

By region and then alphabetically by country seems most intuitive.

H5N1 does not recognize political boundaries, and often we are interested in a geographical region that includes more than one country (Turkey and Azerbaijan, for example). But we might not remember all the relevant country names unless we see them in a list related to each other.

 

[DRJJ]

Re: Which is the easiest way to find things?

I think it depends on the geographic abilities of the person doing the searching. If you are looking for Chad or Pakistan or Qatar and you don't know where it is, then alphabetically is easiest, else by region and then alphabetically is easier. If we are tracking a dynamic situation, like an outbreak of flu or RVF, starting with the seminal country, and then following with the 2ndary outbreaks may help in organizing the new information into a rapidly changing scenario. After the initial flood of changing info, the regional orientation would probably prove most useful.

An example of the latter case is the outbreak of H5N1 in the Nile delta. Initially all the outbreaks were considered more or less individually. Later they were grouped by political designation within the Nile delta. As the outbreaks expanded, the outbreaks in the Nile delta were lumped together and then outbreaks in neighboring areas, e.g., below Cairo, etc., were included. In this way, readers were acquainted with the geographic spread in a way which facilitated the incorporation of new information into existing knowledge while highlighting the progression of outbreaks.