Word 2008 bar code Merge Problem

[Maximzodal]

I've used mail merge extensively for years with no problems. Mac Word
2004 worked OK. Now when I try to merge to labels using 2008, when
merge is finished, I get { BARCODE "24064 (paragraph symbol) "\u }
instead of the bar code on every label. Well, the number is the zip
code. All the other information merges OK. It does the same thing
whether the source is Excel or a Word table. I've tried everything I
can think of to no avail. Does anyone have any suggestions? I'm
ready to reinstall office 2004.

Max

 

[CyberTaz]

Have you tried Control/Right-Clicking the field, then selecting Toggle Field
Codes from the contextual menu?

HTH |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Maximzodal]

Have you tried Control/Right-Clicking the field, then selecting Toggle Field
Codes from the contextual menu?

HTH |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

Took a second to realize I had to select the whole merge document then
do the Toggle Field thing. Unbelievable! I suppose this is another
of Microsoft's myriad, stupid, 2008 "enhancements"? I have been
merging address labels for years with no problems like this till Word
2008. Why one should be forced to toggle just this particular field
when using the merge tool is beyond my understanding. It's as though
the MS Word team's goal with 2008 was, "let's see if we can't make
Word a frustrating obstacle course for experienced users. We can call
it an enhancement!" Que manic laughter.

Thank God you MVP's are so knowledgeable AND donate your time to
help! But I have to wonder why one should be forced to turn to a
group like this to discover how to do something that has been
relatively simple in the past.

A big THANKS Bob.

Max

 

[Peter Jamieson]

FWIW
a. if the field codes are displayed in the mail merge main document
when you initiate the merge, they appear to be displayed in the output
document.
b. that appears to be the same in Word 2008 as it is in Word 2004.

But perhaps you always used Word in a way that results in the field
results being displayed.

I have no idea if Word 2008 suffers from the same problem as Word 2007
as far as USPS barcodes are concerned (there does not seem to be much
info. on the 2008 front), but just in case, the following info is about
Word 2007 barcode fields...

----------------------------------
If you are not using postnet barcodes for bulk mailing discounts, the USPS
has an article saying that

"unless you are preparing a mailing for automation rates, you should NOT put
barcodes on the mailpieces. As long as the mailing address is correct, your
mail will still be processed efficiently without a barcode-and
you won't need to worry about having the wrong barcode on your mail."

http://www.usps.com/businessmail101/misc/discountsBarcoded.htm

One of the links in the article says that you can't get an automation-rate
discount unless your mailing list has been verified by Coding Accuracy
Support System (CASS) software and you're sending at least 200 or 500 pieces
(depending on the mail class) at one time.

Part of the problem is that the standards for generating barcodes have
changed over the years and Word's feature has not kept up. Microsoft has a
general
article about this here::

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897290

There's a specific article about the problem with "multi-unit buildings"
here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/220548

In other words, if you're using USPS barcodes for bulk mailing discounts,
you have to use a package other than Word. If you aren't, you don't need
them and probably shouldn't use them at all.
----------------------------------



Peter Jamieson

http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk

 

[CyberTaz]

Peter has addressed the issue with postal barcodes in general, but as for
the toggling of field codes you're welcome to "suppose" as you will This
is absolutely nothing newly introduced in Office 2008. Generating field
codes, editing them, & just determining what type of fields have been used
where would be virtually impossible without that capability. IOW, the
ability to toggle the codes has been available as long as fields,
themselves. No disrespect, but I can't comprehend how anyone with your
length of experience with mail merge has managed to elude them.