========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:33:41 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Joan Stout Subject: Joint Commission indexing In-Reply-To: <199508281748.AA03216@lamb.sas.com> from "Jonathan Jermey" at Aug 28, 95 11:45:42 am ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- For about a year now, I've been indexing for the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. I've had chronic problems with them, and I'm trying to decide if I want to continue working with them. If anyone has worked with the Joint Commission before and is willing to talk about it, please send me email. Thanks! Joan Stout sasjcs@unx.sas.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:33:59 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Indexing decisions In-Reply-To: <199508281802.LAA11272@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Here's my input, FWIF. On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Jonathan Jermey wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >1. Which of the following would you prefer? Actually, I would use the following, provided it fits within the context: smoking prevalence and advertising .... social statistics with the possibility of using a sub-sub head under _social statistics_ >2. Or would you use Prevalence as the heading? No, counter intuitive. Stick with smoking prevalence. >5. Would you use a general reference "cancer 45-46, see also names of >specific cancers" or would you say "cancer, see also bladder cancer; >endometrial cancer; lung cancer; oral cavity cancer; stomach cancer" and so >on for about 10 cancers. I would say "see also names of specific cancers >6. Would it make any difference to your answer if all of the relevant >cancers were listed on pages 45-46? Yes, I'd leave it at "cancer" in that case. Hope it's helped. John O. ********************************************************************** * John Overbaugh (206) 957-8486 * * Technical Documentation johno@spry.com * * CompuServe Internet Division www.spry.com * * * * Wie herrlich leuchtet mir die Natur * * Wie gldntzt die Sonne * * Wie lacht die Flur! * * --Goethe, Mailied * ********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:34:15 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: Query: Term correction In-Reply-To: <9508281817.AA13281@carson.u.washington.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a book, I always use the AUTHOR's terminology; so if the author calls it 'plastic surgery' most of the time, then that's how it's indexed, with a cross-reference from cosmetic surgery. If he users both terms and differentiates between them in the text, then you could post to both with 'see also' terms between the two; but don't routinely double-post to both terms. The MEDICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS (MeSH) entry is: Cosmetic surgery, see Plastic Surgery. So in a journal or multi-authored book, I would always go with the MeSH preferred term. But for a single-authored book, the author is always right, whether or not I personally agree with his choice of terms. Only if he's inconsistent will I arbitrarily pick my preferred term over his. Carolyn G. Weaver Associate Director for Administration Health Sciences Library University of Washington e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu Box 357155 phone: 206/543-3401 Seattle, Wa. 98195-7155 fax: 206/543-8066 On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 Locatelli@aol.com wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > The author of a book I am using has written a section (about 5 pages) on > what he calls "plastic surgery." However, what he really means is "cosmetic > surgery," i.e., surgery used solely for cosmetic purposes, rather than to > correct a birth defect or injury. Later in the book there is a one-page > section with several references to cosmetic surgery. > > Any suggestions for how to deal with this in the index? Do I use both terms > with cross references? Do I index only under "cosmetic surgery" with a see > reference from plastic surgery? Do I call the publisher and tell them the > author has used the incorrect term? > > Thanks for your words of wisdom. > > Fred Leise > "Between the Lines" Indexing and Editorial Services > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:35:37 ECT Reply-To: becohen@prairienet.org Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Barbara E. Cohen" Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Re: Hazel's query: I'm not making $50,000 a year either, but I assumed the article meant gross (not net). Anyway, I always deduct some unknown percentage for living in the Midwest (not that I think I don't deserve to get paid what the coastal indexers make, mind you...), so maybe given the cost of living in California $50,0000 is average. I keep reminding myself that I make enough to live on, so I shouldn;t compare my lilfestyle to anyone else's. However, if everyone else is making $50,000, perhaps Hazel and I should hear about it so we can raise our rates and stop"undercutting" the competition!! Anyway, it would be interesting to know what the "average" indexer makes, but we've always shied away from publishing this sort of information, perhaps to keep people like me from fretting (when I'm really doing just fine). Barbara -- Barbara E. Cohen Indexing & Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:35:55 ECT Reply-To: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: Indexing decisions In-Reply-To: <9508281855.AA09253@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Glenda Browne wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > I am currently having an argument about some choices made in an index, and > would be interested to see whether there is agreement within INDEX-L about > these issues. The questions refer to an index with unlimited space for a 400 > page book on tobacco and smoking. > > 1. Which of the following would you prefer? > > smoking prevalence 11-19, 11t-17t, 19t, 42 > and advertising 292 > and anti-smoking campaigns 217-218 > gender differences 311-315, 311t-316t > and workplace bans 124 > younger people 175, 180-181 > > OR > > smoking prevalence 11 > adults 11-12, 11t-12t > and advertising 292 > and anti-smoking campaigns 217-218 > and workplace bans 124 > by country of birth 16, 17t > by educational level 15-16, 16t > by occupational level 14-15, 15t > children 13-14, 13t-14t > gender differences 311-315, 311t-316t > young adults 14, 14t > younger people 175, 180-181 I'd like to say I'm of two minds on this--but I'm of several minds! I (and this is strictly personal preference) don't like to have a main heading followed by a page number or numbers, if there are also subheadings. That leaves readers wondering what in the world "11" (in the second example) is. Is it a general reference? Is it the most important reference about the topic? I'd try to fit the "11" in to a subheading. I like the detail you go into in the second example. However, I'm concerned about the alphabetization. I don't alphabetize by function words such as "and" and "by" (I use the Chicago Manual of Style), but I know that some people (Hans Wellisch comes to mind) *do* alphabetize subheadings this way. Again, I think this sort of alphabetization might prove confusing for index users. In the text, is there a distinction made between "younger people" and "young adults"? If so, do you have references like young adults defined younger people defined in your index? Do you think these two terms might confuse readers? (Of course, if they're defined in the text and used as terms of art, your readers will have to familiarize themselves with these terms.) > In both cases the pages are also posted directly under the subdivision as > well, e.g. there are entries for children, occupational level, etc. I think this is good, too. You want to put things together under the main heading "smoking prevalence" as well as under the subheadings. That way, your readers will definitely find things. > 2. Or would you use Prevalence as the heading? I'd leave your main heading as is. I think that "prevalence" might be a bit too vague. You could conceivably have prevalence. See smoking prevalence in your index, too, to help readers out. > 3. Would you change your mind if you were told that the pages on prevalence > were the most significant pages in the book? If you mean by "most significant" that most of the book is indeed about smoking prevalence, I might have to rethink things. If this is the case, virtually your entire index could fall under the main heading "smoking prevalence," and that wouldn't be a good idea. (Reminds me of a book on folk music that I indexed. Truly: *Everything* could have gone under the main heading "folk music." I had to do some real hair-pulling on this one.) If your entire book is about smoking prevalence, then under "smoking prevalence" and perhaps "prevalence," I'd have See specific main headings > 4. Would you use the heading "ACIL Economics and Policy" or "ACIL Economics > and Policy Pty Ltd"? Unfortunately, I don't know anything about this topic. Still, I think I'd use the first term. (Gut reaction.) "Pty Ltd" doesn't really add anything to your heading. I think of legal cases, in which you can leave off terms that aren't particularly necessary. For example (and I'm quoting the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation here), if the case is a consolidation of two or more actions, you cite only the first one listed. So, you'd use Shelley v. Kraemer rather than Shelley v. Kraemer, McGhee v. Sipes Fry v. Mayor of Sierra Vista is preferable to Fry v. Mayor & City Council of Sierra Vista; the first party listed is sufficient. You'd also omit words indicating multiple parties, such as "et al." and alternative names given for parties. Descriptive terms ("administrator," "appellee," "executor," "licensee," and "trustee") should also be omitted. And on and on and on. I have no idea if any of these form a good analogy! > 5. Would you use a general reference "cancer 45-46, see also names of > specific cancers" or would you say "cancer, see also bladder cancer; > endometrial cancer; lung cancer; oral cavity cancer; stomach cancer" and so > on for about 10 cancers. Since you have unlimited space for the index, I'd go ahead and list all the types of cancer. > 6. Would it make any difference to your answer if all of the relevant > cancers were listed on pages 45-46? If all the relevant cancers were on pages 45-46 and weren't found on any other pages in the book, I wouldn't have a "See also" cross-reference. You'd be sending the readers to "bladder cancer," "endometrial cancer," and the like, when there'd really be no necessity to do so. Again, I'd probably have all the cancers as main headings, for those who've looked up a particular type of cancer. Just my $.02. Thanks for the challenging question! I hope lots of folks write in. Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "We know the human brain is a device to keep the ears from grating on one another."--Peter De Vries ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:36:22 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: AOL's "Who's Who in Indexing" ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- You wrote: > >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I'm one of the teachers of the USDA course in basic indexing. One of my >students told me that she'd seen my CV on AOL's "Who's Who in Indexing." >I don't know what "Who's Who in Indexing" is, and I don't know how my CV >got there. Hazel: The Who's Who file is a collection of indexer profiles that I maintain on AOL. Last April I posted it to INDEX-L and thereafter you sent me a profile and asked me to include it. If you'd like, I can send you a copy (of your profile) offline. Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:37:22 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Query: Term correction ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Fred -- Using both terms -- cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery -- would be okay; however, my preference would be to use a *See* reference from plastic surgery to cosmetic surgery (the correct term) since the author uses that term later in the book. Your question reminds me of a business technology book I recently indexed. The author liked to make up his own terms for things; for example, he said "environmental monitoring" when he was actually discussing competitive analysis. It took me awhile to figure that out and, when I did, I created an entry for "competitive analysis" with a *See* reference to "environmental monitoring," providing a clue for readers browsing the index. ************************************************************************* Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com or LMLathrop@aol.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 ************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:37:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: AOL's "Who's Who in Indexing" ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Hazel -- I have not seen your CV in AOL's Who's Who in Indexing folder, which is simply a folder for indexers on AOL to introduce themselves. If you decide to subscribe to AOL, tho', we'd be happy to have you add your CV to the folder. ;-) ************************************************************************* Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com or LMLathrop@aol.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 ************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:38:03 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Indexing decisions ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Glenda -- In answer to your first three questions, I prefer your second example, which provides a better topic analysis than the first one. Also, I see nothing wrong with "smoking prevalence" as the heading; I think it's clearer than simply using "prevalence" (which you might want to include with a *See* reference to "smoking prevalence"). Without seeing the text, it's hard to answer your fourth question; either choice could be okay, but I think I lean toward the second choice (but without the abbreviation of Pty, unless that's actually in the official name). In response to your fifth question, my preference would be "cancer 45-46, see also names of specific cancers" since there are so many types of cancer discussed. That wouldn't be my choice, however, if the book discussed just one or two other cancers. It also wouldn't be my choice if all of the relevant cancers were listed on pages 45-46; in that case, I'd prefer a general reference ("cancer 45-46") and, if you have unlimited space, entries for each type of cancer. What a fun exercise this was! I'll be interested to see how others respond. BTW, I always enjoy reading your postings. :-) Lori ************************************************************************* Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com or LMLathrop@aol.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 ************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:38:33 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Max McMaster Subject: Re: Macrex and paragraph numbers ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy, >I suspect there is a simple answer to this problem and I would really >appreciate if someome would share it with me > > >I have been asked to index an adminstration manual > >I use MACREX > >The manual is arranged in sections 1-16 called surprisingly >enough section one etc. Within the sections are paragraph numbers 1, 1.1, >1.2, 1.2.1 etc. > >However the first digit does not correspond with the section >number and the authors of this document would like the index to read >Section one 1.2.1, > Section two 1.2.1.4 >etc. > >Any ideas on the best way to do this so I can sort it by section and >paragraph number for proof reading would be most >welcome. One way is to set up your Macrex entries with the following structure: e.g. sheep {s }2.3.4.5, {s }3.5.7.9 turkeys {s }4.12.3.8, {s }16.6.4.5 where {s } (produced as a simple macro using the global/search replace facility) represents Section and the first digit(s) up to the first period represent the Section number. All digits after the first period correspond to the paragraph numbers. So for our sheep example the first entry corresponds to Section two paragraph 3.4.5 Once you have completed the index, use the Utilities menu, and select option P - convert to page number order. You will then be able to proofread the index in section number order. Once proofreading and editing are completed, convert the index back to alphabetical sequence using option A of the Utilities menu. You will need to run a merge to get all the entries back in their place. Next create a word processing file (Option W from the Print menu). Leave Macrex, and open the Macrex index file from your word processing package. Run a Find and Replace operation. e.g. Find s 2. [note period]; Replace with Section two [space after the two] This should then leave the entry for our first sheep example as: Section two 3.4.5 The same Find/Replace operation can then be done for the other sections. Good luck. Max McMaster Australasian Macrex agent Max McMaster Master Indexing mindexer@interconnect.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:39:05 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rachel Rice Subject: Many thanks ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Many thanks to the many responses to my question, both here on the list and privately. Keep 'em coming if you've still got ideas. I am feeling better about the whole thing as far as how to handle the assignment. Still not sure I'm capable yet of doing a good index, though. I'm working, I'm working. I am perseverating on my USDA lessons now. I'll never finish within the year time limit at this rate. Well, since we all know about my vacation, are there any list members in the LA area who would like to get together for lunch or an informal gathering while I'm out there? I'll be there from Oct. 18 to 27, will have a car, not intimidated by freeways. Jonathan, I need a vacation from living in a vacation capitol! :-) Rachel Rachel Rice Martha's Vineyard Island rachelr@tiac.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:52:24 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Nancy Humphreys Subject: women's studies ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I'm finding that women's studies, particularly anthropology is combining the author's personal narrative with her scholarly study of a subject. Now, I know how to index biography and I know how to index scholarly subjects, buth the two together are a bit of a challenge. Anyone run into this? Also, my previous question was--do book publishers, particulary in the social sciences, have any kind of standard for the number of words per printed page in a published book. (In order to translate how many pages of an author's rough draft might be when printed.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:52:38 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Max McMaster Subject: Re: Macrex and paragraph numbers ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy, >I suspect there is a simple answer to this problem and I would really >appreciate if someome would share it with me > > >I have been asked to index an adminstration manual > >I use MACREX > >The manual is arranged in sections 1-16 called surprisingly >enough section one etc. Within the sections are paragraph numbers 1, 1.1, >1.2, 1.2.1 etc. > >However the first digit does not correspond with the section >number and the authors of this document would like the index to read >Section one 1.2.1, > Section two 1.2.1.4 >etc. > >Any ideas on the best way to do this so I can sort it by section and >paragraph number for proof reading would be most >welcome. One way is to set up your Macrex entries with the following structure: e.g. sheep {s }2.3.4.5, {s }3.5.7.9 turkeys {s }4.12.3.8, {s }16.6.4.5 where {s } (produced as a simple macro using the global/search replace facility) represents Section and the first digit(s) up to the first period represent the Section number. All digits after the first period correspond to the paragraph numbers. So for our sheep example the first entry corresponds to Section two paragraph 3.4.5 Once you have completed the index, use the Utilities menu, and select option P - convert to page number order. You will then be able to proofread the index in section number order. Once proofreading and editing are completed, convert the index back to alphabetical sequence using option A of the Utilities menu. You will need to run a merge to get all the entries back in their place. Next create a word processing file (Option W from the Print menu). Leave Macrex, and open the Macrex index file from your word processing package. Run a Find and Replace operation. e.g. Find s 2. [note period]; Replace with Section two [space after the two] This should then leave the entry for our first sheep example as: Section two 3.4.5 The same Find/Replace operation can then be done for the other sections. Good luck. Max McMaster Australasian Macrex agent > Max McMaster Master Indexing mindexer@interconnect.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:52:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Leading people to believe that indexers make $50,000 a year is an appalling failure of judgment, in my opinion. I think there are only a few ways to make that much money: (1) do quick and dirty work--quantity rather than quality; (2) spend all your time indexing, at the expense of family life, friendships, exercise, relaxation time; or (3) hire out a lot of the work to low-paid clerical people, again with little attention to quality, because if you really paid attention, you couldn't afford to do this. ASI's admin. office has been SWAMPED with requests for information as a result of that article. Maybe we'll get some short-term memberships out of it. But, what about the clients who read an article like this? Do they think we are all earning that much? Do they then assume they are overpaying? We have been campaigning for professional status and thus professional wages for years, but an article in a mass-media magazine is not the best forum for this. The media can be a dangerous form of communication. Words are twisted, context is lost, sometimes in all innocence, but the message can be garbled as a result. I would hope that wise readers will take it all with a grain of salt. Elinor Lindheimer President American Society of Indexers ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:53:53 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "laura m. gottlieb" Subject: indexing choices ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- 30 August 1995 Dear Jonathan, Here are my preferences: #1: The indexer in me who likes to be compact and neat prefers the first way of indexing; the indexer who identifies more strongly with researchers' needs prefers the second. Though I myself hardly ever index the content of tables, in this case, I lean toward the second version (but alphabetize subentries by first significant word). #2: I would not use "prevalence" as a subheading, though if the text makes frequent mention of "prevalence" alone, I would make a cross-reference from "prevalence" to "smoking prevalence." #3. No. I would still handle it as in answer #2. #4. Since I don't know what these acronyms and abbreviations stand for, I can't answer this question. As a matter of policy, however, I tend to use the fullest, most official form of proper names. #5 and #6. If the only references in the book to cancer are on pages 45-46, I would simply say "cancer 45-46." If there are other references to more specific cancers, I would say, "cancer 45-46. See also specific cancers." I would not list individual kinds of cancers in the cross-reference. Only a book which treated a variety of cancers in more depth than it sounds as though this one does, would warrant a listing of specific cancers in its cross-references. This is the advice I would give on the basis of my 13 years of indexing experience. I'd be interested to know if my suggestions conform with your views. Best wishes to you on resolving this conflict. Yours, Laura Moss Gottlieb Madison, Wisconsin pgottlie@facstaff.wisc.edu %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:54:07 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Giles Subject: Re: Query: Term correction In-Reply-To: <9508281815.AA50717@medcat.library.swmed.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Cosmetic surgery is a subspecialty of plastic surgery, so the term isn't really incorrect, just somewhat imprecise. I would put in a cross reference from cosmetic surgery to plastic surgery. Surgery to correct birth defects and defects from trauma is often called 'reconstructive surgery', possibly because it often involves more than plastic surgery, i.e. orthopedic surgery also. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sharon Giles, Weekend Manager giles@medcat.library.swmed.edu UT Southwestern Medical Ctr Library 214/648-2001 (voice) 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. 214/648-3007 (fax) Dallas, TX 75235-9049 On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 Locatelli@aol.com wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > The author of a book I am using has written a section (about 5 pages) on > what he calls "plastic surgery." However, what he really means is "cosmetic > surgery," i.e., surgery used solely for cosmetic purposes, rather than to > correct a birth defect or injury. Later in the book there is a one-page > section with several references to cosmetic surgery. > > Any suggestions for how to deal with this in the index? Do I use both terms > with cross references? Do I index only under "cosmetic surgery" with a see > reference from plastic surgery? Do I call the publisher and tell them the > author has used the incorrect term? > > Thanks for your words of wisdom. > > Fred Leise > "Between the Lines" Indexing and Editorial Services > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:54:18 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Query: Term correction ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- And sometimes the author himself doesn't know what term he wants. I just finished a book in which the author said he was opposed to the term "instinct" and preferred "innate motor reflex," or some such thing. Although he was careful not to use the term "instinct," he *did* say "instinctive this" and "instinctive that" throughout the book. So what I did was have an entry for "instinct" with a few locators (only for places where he discussed how scientists et al. used that term) and then a "see also" to the other term. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:54:36 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Indexing decisions ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >> smoking prevalence 11 >> adults 11-12, 11t-12t >> and advertising 292 >> and anti-smoking campaigns 217-218 >> and workplace bans 124 >> by country of birth 16, 17t >> by educational level 15-16, 16t >> by occupational level 14-15, 15t >> children 13-14, 13t-14t >> gender differences 311-315, 311t-316t >> young adults 14, 14t >> younger people 175, 180-181 > >I'd like to say I'm of two minds on this--but I'm of several minds! I (and >this is strictly personal preference) don't like to have a main heading >followed by a page number or numbers, if there are also subheadings. That >leaves readers wondering what in the world "11" (in the second example) >is. Is it a general reference? Is it the most important reference about >the topic? I'd try to fit the "11" in to a subheading. I agree, except when there's perhaps a whole chapter on smoking prevalence (or lengthy section). So then I might do this (and making up the numbers): smoking prevalence 11-50 adults 11-12, 11t-12t and advertising 292 This way, the reader doesn't have to add up the various page numbers in the subheads to figure out whether there's a whole section on smoking prevalence. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:55:04 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: AOL's "Who's Who in Indexing" In-Reply-To: <9508292357.AA21746@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Richard Evans wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > You wrote: > > > >----------------------------Original > message---------------------------- > >I'm one of the teachers of the USDA course in basic indexing. One of > my > >students told me that she'd seen my CV on AOL's "Who's Who in > Indexing." > >I don't know what "Who's Who in Indexing" is, and I don't know how my > CV > >got there. > > Hazel: > > The Who's Who file is a collection of indexer profiles that I maintain > on AOL. Last April I posted it to INDEX-L and thereafter you sent me a > profile and asked me to include it. If you'd like, I can send you a > copy (of your profile) offline. > > Dick Evans I am mortified that I don't remember sending in my CV to Dick Evans! Perhaps the Florida sun has fried my brain completely. One of my students sent me the CV, Dick, but thank you for offering to do so. Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "We know the human brain is a device to keep the ears from grating on one another."--Peter De Vries ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:55:21 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: USDA course time limits In-Reply-To: <9508292357.AA21755@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Rachel Rice wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > I'll never finish > within the year time limit at this rate. Just a note about the one-year time limit on USDA correspondence courses (from the USDA correspondence program catalogue, page 8): "Completions "One year from the enrollment date is the time allowed to complete a course. If all assignments are not completed within this period, the course enrollment will expire. "Extension of Time If requested before the expiration date, an additional year of time can be granted for a fee of $20. This fee must accompany the request for an extension." Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "We know the human brain is a device to keep the ears from grating on one another."--Peter De Vries ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:55:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: American Reference Publishing Company In-Reply-To: <9508300002.AA21804@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- To anyone who decides to index or edit for the American Reference Publishing Company in Lakeville, Connecticut: DON'T DO IT! They're trying desperately to wiggle out of paying numerous freelancers who worked on the Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations. Disgusting. Hazel (who's posting this message to several listservs) Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "We know the human brain is a device to keep the ears from grating on one another."--Peter De Vries ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:55:52 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: Query: Term correction ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > From: Locatelli@aol.com > Subject: Query: Term correction > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > The author of a book I am using has written a section (about 5 pages) on > what he calls "plastic surgery." However, what he really means is "cosmetic > surgery," i.e., surgery used solely for cosmetic purposes, rather than to > correct a birth defect or injury. Later in the book there is a one-page > section with several references to cosmetic surgery. > > Any suggestions for how to deal with this in the index? Do I use both terms > with cross references? Do I index only under "cosmetic surgery" with a see > reference from plastic surgery? Do I call the publisher and tell them the > author has used the incorrect term? The term is not 'incorrect' - just a bit less specific than it might be. Since one aim is to use the language of the book, and another is to use the language that users are likely to use, I would index it twice, as Plastic surgery 212-7, 315 (or, if you feel strongly Plastic surgery (cosmetic) 212-7, 315) and again under Cosmetic surgery 212-7, 315 Hope this helps Jonathan. Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne Blaxland NSW Australia 61-47-398-199