Recipe Sorting : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
| 21 |
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
what my mother used was a loose-leaf ring binder
Me I use a hardback notebook, but I don't collect as many recipes as her.
The alternative is to get some dedicated recipe software, which does exist but then you need to print the darn things out to use them (or have a computer/PDA in the kitchen, never a good idea) and you're committed to moving them forward through computer/software changes. And recipes are used in the databases area as an example of the sort of semi-structured data it's pretty much impossible to get well-defined (in other words how you want to use them is never the same way as the next person wants to).
This is the sort of thing that brings out my luddite tendencies...
Re: what my mother used was a loose-leaf ring binder
Two major points in favour of the Luddite approach are a) cutting and pasting can be done while watching telly, unlike typing or (probably) scanning and hence is a less free-time-consuming job.
b) you probably have quite a lot of random info about the most frequently used recipes already stored in your wetware (eg From Guardian, slightly stained, in mother's handwriting, on back of brown envelope) and therefore once you've got it into some sort of order, even the vaguest filing system (starters, meat, fish, veg, puddings, misc) will narrow it down enough for you to scan through for the relevant typeface. If you scan or retype then all that lovely information will be lost, and you'll probably have to do a proper index job (or, more likely, start to do a proper index job and then lose interest a third of the way through).
Re: what my mother used was a loose-leaf ring binder
Re: what my mother used was a loose-leaf ring binder