========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 02:11:38 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: potential new indexer In a message dated 95-09-28 18:40:55 EDT, Marge wrote: >So my questions are -- Do you find the material that you work on >to be interesting and stimulating, or are you so pressed for time that it's >impossible to enjoy this aspect? Are you able to work in a variety of areas, >or for logistical reasons is it wiser to specialize in a field and stick with >it? And finally, can anyone comment on these same questions regarding book >editing? > > Marge, What a fantastic question!!!!!! One of the greatest joys of indexing, IMHO, is the ongoing opportunity to actually get paid for reading books. (You have to create an index somewhere in your bliss, but let's not quibble over details. ;-D) Even when I'm crunched for time, which is almost always, I'm smelling the daisies as I go along through a book. About a month ago, while indexing a book on physics, I encountered a passage about a single electron making a difference in charge in a device and I was so blown away that I leapt from my chair, ran and grabbed my husband, shrieking, "listen to this!!" Now, that may not be the kind of detail that trips your trigger, but indexing is full of those little adventures if you target publishers of materials that meet your interests. I even find gems in otherwise boring (to me) books, like the time that I discovered that I had been filling out bank deposit slips incorrectly all my life. Almost every day brings a delighted "I didn't know *that*!" or "Fascinating!" Some of my clients think I'm nuts because I rhapsodize over the phone with them about the books they send me. Of course, to get this kind of kick out of indexing, one has to just love wallowing in information for its own sake. If you were the kind of kid that read the same cereal box over again each morning at breakfast, just to have something to read, then you'll delight in the smorgasbord of intellectual riches that indexing brings each day. I find that the analytical process of indexing in itself deepens my enjoyment of a book because the constant wrestling with concepts to establish relationships between ideas is an awesome process. If you love identifying and weaving elegant patterns of information, delight in the subtleties of the English language when crafting an entry, you've come to the right place. Sometimes, you can become so in tune with a book, that the entries you're making just start to flow in this incredible burst of creativity, that the whole experience starts assuming cosmic dimensions and you start reaching heights of rapture like the ladies in the York Peppermint Patty commercials. It's not like that all of the time, but often enough. Even when the material is very difficult, when you're making herculean efforts to glean a single entry from a passage, you come through the experience as a changed person. For, in stretching the mind so, it never snaps quite back to its former dimensions--which prepares you for the next book on that subject. ;-D So, indexing is not at all like general reading, IMHO. The concentration required ratchets the intensity of the experience up by an order of magnitude, at least. Indexing reminds me a lot of what Michaelangelo said about a sculpture already existing in a block of stone and that one has to chip away at the stone to expose the sculpture inside. (Or something like that.) I don't know if that has much to do with what you asked, but I've always wanted to say that on this list. ;-D Now that I hear earth paging me, I'll get to your other question. It does help to specialize. The more familiar you become with a body of information, the easier it is to create cross-references and organize the structure of an index as relationships have already formed little tracks in your mind. However, too steady a diet of the same material deepens those tracks into ruts, the eyes start to glaze over, and it becomes time to boldly go where you never indexed before. ;-D In case you haven't noticed, I happen to like indexing. Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 02:11:40 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: listservs and personal mail In a message dated 95-09-28 18:59:53 EDT, you write: >In other words, I don't believe it makes a post too "personal" if I simply >begin it by saying, "Kari, with regard to your post about personal >messages, I think...." Rather, it helps you to know what I'm talking >about without having to quote the entire message in my post (a personal >pet peeve I haven't mentioned on the list). > Oh, Sonsie, have mercy on those of us with weak memories. ;-D Even when someone is responding to one of my own posts, if they don't include much of the original message it takes me a while to figure out what they're responding to. (One reason I've turned on the SET REPRO command.) Just today, someone posted an intriguing reply to something I must have missed and I went rifling through the incoming mailboxes on all of my accounts trying to find the original message. I do hope that folks will continue to include at least the relevant portions of the messages they're responding to. BTW, I agree with all of the rest of your message. Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 23:25:26 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: "little words" in subentries >Lynn, your experience with "versus" sounds as if your index got tangled >up with a proofreader/editor who adheres slavishly to The Rules about >abbreviations. How nice it would be if more people had the intellectual >flexibility to realize there is a time for Rules and then there is a time >to be smart and work WITH the reader rather than making his or her life >more complex. > > |==========| > | Sonsie | > |==========| > Indeed! This little story has a happy ending (though not for that particular index). Another client, this one in the process of writing a house style, asked me about why I abbreviated "vs." in an index I did for them, giving me the opportunity to give her a similar version of what you said this morning about ease of scanning. To ice the cake, I found an entry in the index to the Chicago Manual of Style where "versus" is abbreviated. (The text in the 13th Edition is silent on that issue, but I felt it safe to assume that their own index would follow their guidelines. ;-D) Fortunately, there are some out there who put the reader's needs before slavishly following the rules. Lynn *********************************************************************** Lynn Moncrief visit the ASI Web page at: TECHindex & Docs http://www.well.com/user/ASI/ 13681 Newport Ave., #8375 Tustin, CA 92680 watch this space for a TECHindex URL wildfire@earthlink.net wyldfire@ix.netcom.com wildefire@aol.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 02:49:29 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@AOL.COM Subject: Re: potential new indexer Marge, You got a great answer from Lynn Moncrief. I couldn't say it better myself. Let me just add that while there are books that I do because I have to, there are many that I thoroughly enjoy, and learn from, and admire the writing in, and improve my vocabulary, and knowledge base from. Yes, I do read them for content beyond what is needed for indexing, if they catch my fancy. Why not? As for specializing, I work in scientific and engineering fields, from my original college background and work experience into the present. But I've never limited my indexing work or clients to only technical. Instead, I've striven all along to have a mix of sci/tech with social sciences clients and books. I like going from one type of material to the other, and back again. Different types of stuff to read, different types of indexes, each with specific challenges, and a nice mix to add spice to life. Better for me that way. But each person has to find his/her own "best way." What better way to live out your fantasies regarding books (whatever they are!) than to be an indexer! I used to dream of being locked in a bookstore at night, so I would never have to go home! (As long as they left the lights on!) Good luck! Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 07:13:21 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: potential new indexer In-Reply-To: <9509290747.AA22802@symnet.net> I wish I could improve on what people like Janet, Kevin, Lynn, and Sonsie have written about indexing, but I can't. I'd just like to add that I often get copies of the books I've indexed, and then I *really* get a chance to read the books for pleasure. Do, indeed, ask for a copy of the book you've indexed or edited. Some publishers send you one as a matter of course. Others don't. Still others will give you a discount on the book. No matter what, it's terrific to have a copy. Then, if a potential client asks to see a sample of your work, you can send a copy of the index. And if you're fortunate enough to be credited as the indexer, or if you've made it to the Acknowledgments page, by all means send those pages along, too. Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "People call and say, '[Opossums]'re ugly.' And I say, 'You might be ugly, too. But that doesn't mean I can have you eradicated.'" --Ellen Plachter (Wildlife Care Center, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:33:16 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: potential new indexer I specialize in software manuals. In addition to learning about software I haven't used before, I also get an early look at material I can really use, like an AOL tour guide or a Windows 95 book. On many occasions, I have run into problems that I have been able to resolve by turning to the unpublished draft of some book I have indexed. That's when I find out if my index was any good. :-) Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:34:18 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: PilarW@AOL.COM Subject: Re: potential new indexer What a delightful thread! Good question, Marge. I support everyone elses posts on this, for Yes, I do learn a lot of fun and not-so fun things while indexing. You do get both, though--be warned! I specialize in clinical medicine and health care, as well as political science, economics, and maritime affairs. and just about anything else. Indexers are virtual "renaissance men" if you ask me. For example, I'm doing a massive book on surgical pathology. gross. Thank goodness the photos are not in color. --apologies to anyone who is genuinely interested in that! I'm happy to know the differences, and should anyone need to know about carcinomas (cancers) and their structural features, give me a call. But this is not a topic I would normally seek out to learn. On the other hand, I also just finished a big electrical and mechanical marine manual. My husband and I are sailors, and were quite delighted to learn about through-hull fittings, solar panels, idiotproofing (a fun header, if I say so myself), stirrups for going up the mast (my hubby has a fear of heights, and I'm not the best shimmyer...), and the straight bits on ac-dc engines, electric heads, bilge pumps, blah blah blah. Now, guess which one paid more?! Moral of the story: you'll get some that are fun, and some that aren't. Be prepared for both. Another point--once you get to indexing a lot, it can be hard to read for fun. again, be warned! I think I've read for fun 2 books in the past year. One I read backwards in just a couple hours (naturally, being the indexer that I am I started at the back. It was survival at sea stories from an amazing Fastnet race 15 years ago.), and one I read front-to-back in 3 hours (Dolores Claibourne!). both had me glued, but the rest of the books stacked by my side of the bed have been there for years... Pilar PS: the grosser one paid more...;-) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:51:33 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Larry Harrison Subject: Re: potential new indexer Marge Coahran wrote, in part: >So my questions are -- Do you find the material that you work on >to be interesting and stimulating, or are you so pressed for time that it's >impossible to enjoy this aspect? Are you able to work in a variety of areas, >or for logistical reasons is it wiser to specialize in a field and stick with >it? And finally, can anyone comment on these same questions regarding book >editing? I guess it depends. I love to read too, and some of the books I get are fascinating, but I don't think this will keep you going unless you also have a talent for, and love, the indexing itself. Many times the deadline turns your brain to Jell-O. Sometimes you get a treat: a book that is interesting, well-written, and has a reasonable deadline. I fear these may be the exceptions. Remember: "Less time is available for the preparation of the index than for almost any other step in the bookmaking process. For obvious reasons, most indexes cannot be completed until page proofs are available. Typesetters are anxious for those few final pages of copy; printers want to get the job on the press; binders are waiting; salesmen are clamoring for finished books-- _surely_ you can get that index done over the weekend?" --from _Chicago Manual of Style_, 13th ed. Larry Harrison (larryh@millcomm.com) 507/280-0049 Freelance book indexing Rochester, Minnesota * Don't believe the Mac bigots who say the Mac has had all the * * Win 95 features since 1984. It had to be ... 1987, at least. * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:58:42 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Charlotte Skuster Subject: Number of subscribers to index-l As of 10:55 EST there were 727 subcribers to index-l. We have never approached 2000 but the number was close to 800 about a month ago. Charlotte ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:02:46 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Evans Subject: Re: Potential Indexer - Which Software Package? Until three days ago I didn't even know about the profession of indexing (although obviously in hindsight there had to be one)! But, now I'm subscribed to this service, I've found the ASI home page on the WEB, I just about finished reading Nancy Mulvany's "Indexing Books" (I've yet to look at her index!) ...... etc. Needless to say I'm blown away at the prospect of indexing as a career. There were a lot of posting yesterday about the sheer enjoyment of reading for indexing, and whether to specialize, etc. I read each of the responses thorouhghly and thank you all for the information (many of my own questions were answered). My specific question today is, which software package is best? As you know the prices of these packages varies greatly and I suspect the most expensive are the best (CINDEX and MACREX). However, until I get some experience in this field I am not in a good position to judge which is best. I'd appreciate help from those of you who know better. Thanks in advance! Sue Evans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:07:12 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Larry Harrison Subject: Personal messages and Netiquette One more little point of netiquette: it is generally considered a waste of bandwidth (one of the deadly sins) to copy the other person's signature block when posting included text in a reply. The header "Joe Futzbrain wrote..." takes care of that. The degree of the violation is proportional to the square of the number of lines in the signature block. Larry Harrison (larryh@millcomm.com) 507/280-0049 Freelance book indexing Rochester, Minnesota * Don't believe the Mac bigots who say the Mac has had all the * * Win 95 features since 1984. It had to be ... 1987, at least. * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:19:19 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: potential new indexer In-Reply-To: <9509291443.AA18565@carson.u.washington.edu> Like Pilar, I'm a medical indexer; and as a result, in the last couple of years I've learned More About Neurochemistry Than I Really Want To Know! Unlike her, I still do read for fun - mysteries and science fiction - but primarily on the bus commuting to my day job. Medicine definitely pays better; but the occasional social science, education, history, or business text is really the dessert that keeps indexing interesting! The one thing I've noticed about reading for indexing vs. reading for learning or enjoyment is that when indexing, I'm looking specifically for "indexable" material and tend to skim over lengthy discussions (especially for journal indexes that use broad headings rather than paragraph-by-paragraph indexing); and I'm always working against deadline so really don't have time to think about what I'm reading. I do the annual index for one library journal, billing by the hour. In indexing mode, I work thru each issue quickly to index it, just skimming the features like book reviews that only require format entries (BOOK REVIEWS) and author entries. Then in my librarian mode, I often go back and re-read the issue when I have time to really absorb the content. Same way with book indexes. The content may be fascinating; but it may take a second reading WITHOUT the time clock ticking to absorb and retain it. Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, Wa. e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/930-4348 On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 PilarW@AOL.COM wrote: > > Moral of the story: you'll get some that are fun, and some that aren't. Be > prepared for both. > > Another point--once you get to indexing a lot, it can be hard to read for > fun. again, be warned! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:33:23 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: potential new indexer I agree with Pilar that this is a delightful thread, and I also agree with everything else she said. The grosser, more boring, more tedious jobs usually pay more. On intellectually challenging jobs, the mind-frying kinds, I feel happy about the work, but if I don't have time to really enjoy reading as I index, I feel sad and cheated. If we aren't paid as well to do the interesting jobs, we have to do them fast and get on to other jobs, or we will be in financial trouble. There's another reason to push for higher pay! Lynn pointed out that we can learn even from the tedious books, and I have to second that. It's amazing how much information can be stuffed inside our brains, which is why the more experience we have, the better indexers we can be (once I called it "the wisdom that comes with increasing age"). If there is any value in a book at all, an indexer will find it in the process of indexing, because we delve so deeply into the depths of the writing. I always find SOMETHING to appreciate! By the way, I too have a stack of books next to my bed that I either never started or never finished. For years I barely read anything. My eyes are tired after indexing all day, and so is my brain. Last year, however, I discovered mysteries--Faye Kellerman was the first, followed by Sue Dunlap, Julie Smith, Lia Matera, Patricia Cornwell. I have to STOP myself from reading, or I'll never get any work done. It feels GREAT to enjoy reading again! There are moments in an indexer's life when the sky opens up, you feel lighter, and the world looks like a good place to be: the day you ship (by far the best), the day the check comes, and the day you receive the bound book (unfortunately the latter doesn't always happen). Bye all--back to the tedious job, which I'm in a hurry to finish so I can get on to the fascinating one. Thank you, Marge, for getting us all thinking about this! Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:04:06 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Subject: Re: Personal discussions Just a last quick thought on "Personal Discussions" on Index-l, before the question on "Potential new indexer-Which Software" ignites a new storm. I think Index-l is a "virtual watercooler". There is a sense of isolation associated with any free-lancing and/or working from home. In addition as indexers we're asked to invest (sometimes) tremendous portions of our waking thoughts on one single task, which can result in further alienation. For my money, this is a darn good way to not only obtain useful insights, learn new approaches to viewing things like from that indexing.computing.goddess Lynn Moncreif, but yes also to just generally meet around the watercooler for a coffee break. When I worked in industry, I remember there would always be people who thought the watercooler unseemly, like: why aren't you people working? But any good manager knows there's more to work than work; a socially-connected worker is a better worker usually. I think as long as people don't use this *just* for chatting it's ok to throw in a personal mention or two. I have been attempting to "divert" some of my more "chatty" energy into the private channel, but never all of it. I found it interesting that recently we learned some very interesting things about some people. Like for example Janet Perlman, how long have you had this fantasy about being locked in a library? And Lynn, so you think indexing is a little like sculpting? Do you think Michaelango would have been a good indexer? Maybe he *was* an indexer. Maybe he actually just *started* with some index he had done that had God, a bunch of Angels, the Creation, etc. and then just used that as an excuse for doing a bunch of painting. Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:37:03 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kari Bero Subject: Re: listservs and personal mail In-Reply-To: <199509282147.QAA00498@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> The last thing I wanted to do was add to the traffic that was not of interest to INDEX-Lers. Hopefully, this is the last of this thread... For those of you interested in continuing this discussion: I'm making a mailing list for further discussion. I've already sent a note to the few who do want to continue to talk. I will re-send it to those who are interested. For those who sent me "thank you" notes: I've been buried under these, and I can't email you all personally, but I certainly appreciate your pats on the back. -Kari %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Kari J. Bero Bero-West Indexing Services 206-937-3673 3722 Beach Drive SW, Suite 101 bero@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu Seattle, WA 98116 http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~bero/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:13:33 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: Personal discussions In-Reply-To: <9509291708.AA00880@carson.u.washington.edu> "Virtual watercooler" - an absolutely WONDERFUL analogy!! I think I'm more tolerant of chitchat on INDEX-L than on most listservs precisely because of that factor. When I'm wearing my librarian hat, I get really impatient reading off-topic messages simply because they are part of the 100 or so I have to cope with every day as part of my job. But I practically never have a chance to talk indexing face-to-face with others; so this list and the AOL indexing folders serve the same function as a staff meeting, inservice training, or coffee breaks/lunches with colleagues for the salaried job. And I'll accept Janet's bookstore fantasies as long as she continues to tolerate my occasional indexing-while-watching-whales-migrate ramblings! Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, Wa. e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/930-4348 On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Kevin wrote: > > I think Index-l is a "virtual watercooler". There is a sense of isolation > associated with any free-lancing and/or working from home. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:26:34 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Mary Harris Subject: Another software question As a long-time lurker of this list and a lover of indexing, I am happy to finally be able to pose a relevant query. I am the librarian in charge of a local history room in a mid-sized public library. We are planning many indexing projects, from an obituary clippings file index to back of the book indexes. As I have experience in indexing both from a previous, similar job and classes I have taken, it is my responsibility to find indexing software that can accomadate all of our future of our future projects. The obituary index will need at least six fields. All other indexes will be name and date intensive. What other factors should I be considering? Does anyone have good experiences to relate with any particular programs? I would greatly appreciate any and all responses. Thanks in advance :-) Mary End of returned message ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:28:15 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Re: Potential Indexer - Which Software Package? In-Reply-To: <199509291524.KAA23027@zoom.bga.com> Susan, Regarding your query about the best software for indexing: Yes Cindex and Macrex are at the top. But of those, you need to decide for yourself. Please take the time to look at each demo and try indexing something short with each one. Your decision will probably reflect your thinking style. Both are worthy programs. And I won't even mention which one I ended up with! Neva > = - * - = < = > = - * - = < = > = - * - = < = > = - * - = < = Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services PO Box 2157 / Round Rock, TX 78680 email: njsmith@bga.com voice: (512) 244-2767 Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199 / Round Rock, TX 78680 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:57:20 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Key Words Sep/Oct Issue contents Indexers: The September/October issue of Key Words is ready for printing=20 and distribution. The issue should be mailed in 2-3 weeks. The table of contents is appended.=20 Key Words is the newsletter of the American Society of Indexers. More information is available at asi@well.com. Neva > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - *= - =3D < =3D Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services = =20 PO Box 2157 / Round Rock, TX 78680 email: njsmith@bga.com voice: (512) 244-2767 Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199 / Round Rock, TX 78680 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:38:43 -0400 From:AnneLeach@aol.com To: njsmith@bga.com, JanCW@aol.com Subject: KW TOC for Sep/Oct Issue 9-29-95 Dear Neva and Jan: Here is the Table of Contents for the issue I sent yesterday to Texas for printing and distribution. It won't be in mailboxes for another two or thre= e weeks. As far as the membership is concerned, the Jul/Aug issue is the current one, and because it's got so many good articles on the future of electronic media and the role of indexing, I think it's worth putting out there. FEATURES 1=09An Index Reviewed: The Librarian=92s Legal Companion BY BELLA HASS WEINBERG An analysis and dicsussion of the structure of the indexes to a work of interest to anyone concerned with the issues of censorship and copyright. 7=09Text Categorization: Computer-Based Indexing of Electronic Documents BY DR. RICHARD TONG AS REPORTED BY ELLEN JAKES KELM Data does not become information until it is interpreted. As it becomes mor= e user accessible and reliant, its value increases. The challenge is to asses= s and provide tools that willsupport the process of turning data into information. 10=09Standards Watch: New Rules for Thesauri BY LINDA RUDELL-BETTS A review of ANSI-NISO Z39.19-1993 by an experienced lexicographer, who tell= s us why indexers should care about thesauri and the new standard against whi= ch theycan be measured. 12=09Reference Librarians Have Their Say on Index Usability SHIRLEY J. MANLEY, MODERATOR, WITH ELYSE EISNER, PAT GUY AND JO BELL WHITLATCH In this panel discussion presented at the 1994 Mid-Winter Conference of the Golden Gate Chapter, three intensive users of indexes talk about the good a= nd the bad. 16=09PR ACTION LINE: Your Publicity Committee at Work BY BARBARA E. COHEN A report of the activities of this group whose efforts will bring greater visibility to indexers and to the notion that good indexes matter. 19=09The Business of Being in Business=97Part II BY SUSAN ROTONDO How to attain effectiveness and efficiency in your freelance business each and every day...or, are you managing your business or is it managing you? 26=09Electronic Shoebox: Cards to Keyboard: Indexing by Computer BY OLIVE HOLMES The transition from shuffled index cards to the shimmering electronic index can be theintroduction to a brave new world. REGULAR DEPARTMENTS 4=09Letters to the Editor 5=09From Our President by Elinor Lindheimer 17=09Calendar of Upcoming Events of Interest to Indexers 30=09Member Networking Notebook and Reports from Cyberspace by Vicky Agee, = Jane Edwards, Julius Ariail and Lori Lathrop MEMBER SERVICES 2=09Subscription Information; ASI Officer and Committee contact lists 26=09Survey: What Do You Want at Annual Meetings? 29=09Indexing course information 38=09Professional Development Workshops Information 39=09Workshop Proposal form ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:03:57 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Early Registration Extended Indexers' Halloween Hoot INDEX-Lers: Because of mailing troubles, the early registration date (for the lower=20 price) is extended to October 7th. Registrations postmarked by that date=20 will be eligible for the $25 rate. Please let others know, especially if they are not on the 'Net. Hauntingly yours, Neva > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - *= - =3D < =3D Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services = =20 PO Box 2157 / Round Rock, TX 78680 email: njsmith@bga.com voice: (512) 244-2767 Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199 / Round Rock, TX 78680 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION Subject: Indexers' Halloween Hoot =20 The South Central Chapter of ASI is=20 horribly pleased to announce the=20 Indexers' Halloween Hoot Saturday, October 28, 1995 School of Library and Information Science, Room 464 University of Texas at Austin PROGRAM 9:00 Registration, coffee, tea, and pastries 9:30 Welcome Kay Banning, President; Neva J. Smith President-Elect/Program Chair 9:45 Looking at Wilson Award Indexes A panel will review and comment on a few ASI-H.W. Wilson Award-winning indexes. Linda K. Fetters will introduce the Award with some behind-the-scene insights. Registrants are encouraged to bring questions and to participate in an informal discussion with the panel.=20 11:00 Hands-on Indexing Attendees will index the article "Rethinking the Rules: The Story Behind Kid's Catalog" both as if it is a book and as an article. Facilitators will lead a discussion of the indexes produced. Instructions and a copy of the article will be sent to each registrant. (Permission to use the article has been granted by School Library Journal.) 12:30 Catered lunch by Sassy's There will be a table for informal discussion of newcomers' and beginners' issues -- from coursework to starting your own freelance indexing business.=20 1:30 "Revising a Computer-Generated Index." (A horror story preview) Given the task of revising a computer-generated index to the first volume of an 11 volume reference set, Chapter President Kay Banning describes the task of identifying initial problems, the logistics of working with the computer files, and the editing process using the client's priorities and limitations.=20 2:00 Indexing Horror Stories Registrants are requested to search the dark corners of their memories for their most harrowing indexing experiences. We will share our eye-rolling, groaning, and teeth-gnashing stories in the spirit of Halloween. 3: 00 Report from Montr=82al Neva J. Smith and Linda Webster will present highlights of the joint meeting of ASI and the Indexing and Abstracting Society of Canada in Montre=82al last June. There were several ideas worth "stealing," as you'll discover in this program and at the business meeting. 3:15 Break 3:30 Business meeting Issues to be discussed at the business meeting include * nominations committee to prepare a slate of officers=20 * 2-day meeting concept report and discussion * publicity for spring meeting, registration, etc. * city for fall 1996 meeting * membership survey, purpose, questions to use=20 * desirability of a chapter website * how can we bring together the members of our widespread chapter * local program/networking subgroups * outreach/co-sponsoring programs with related professional associations * feedback for the National organization/board of directors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Registration Form<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Registration includes hands-on indexing material, handouts, and drinks, snacks, and catered lunch on site. For registrations received before October 21, the hands-on indexing article will be mailed via the U. S. Postal Service. You must send a stamped ($.55) self-addressed standard business-sized envelope for the article with your registration, or include the fax fee listed below. For registrations received after October 21 you may request fax delivery ($5) or you may pick up your article when you arrive. Name: USPS mailing address: Phone, Day ______________ Evening _____________ Fax number if you want fax delivery of article for hands-on indexing ($5) ________________ ____ $25 registration postmarked September 29 ____ $35 registration postmarked by October 14 ____ $40 at the door ____ $5 fax delivery of article for the hands-on indexing workshop ____ $ total enclosed=20 Please make checks Payable to: South Central Chapter/ASI Mail registration to=20 Neva J. Smith DataSmiths Information Services PO Box 2157 Round Rock, TX 78680. Remember to include your SASE for your copy of the hands-on indexing article, or check the fax delivery option. Local Hotels There are no "conference" hotels. However, the following are all close to the university (5-10 minutes away). Guest Quarters at 303 W. 15th Street at Lavaca: (512) 478-7000 Marriott just off I35 at 11th Street: (512) 478-1111 Motel 6, 5330 North I35: (512) 467-9111 Holiday Inn Town Lake, I35 at Town Lake Rd.: (512) 472-8211 Holiday Inn Airport, 6911 North I35: (512) 459-4251 Directions From=20I35: Take the Martin Luther King exit and travel west on MLK. The University of Texas will be on your right. Turn into the university at the Speedway St./Congress Ave. entrance. The first building on your left is the Education building which houses the School of Library and Information Science. On your right is a large parking lot. Be careful to avoid spaces marked "reserved at all times." For those flying in: The trip to the university from the airport is about 15 minutes. Call or e-mail Neva Smith for more information or directions.=20 (512) 244-2767; njsmith@bga.com > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - * - =3D < =3D > =3D - *= - =3D < =3D Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services = =20 PO Box 2157 / Round Rock, TX 78680 email: njsmith@bga.com voice: (512) 244-2767 Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199 / Round Rock, TX 78680 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 17:04:02 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Subject: Reversing Reference Abbreviating Here's a CINDEX trick I figured out that reverses page reference abbreviating. This would be useful for example if you used abbreviating on the last edition and wanted to do an update, in which case the abbreviating would thoroughly mess up the GROUPs you set up. Thought I'd pass it on. Substitute/Pattern {{[1-9]}[0-9][0-9]-}{[0-9][0-9]} Replace> \1\2\3 You can easily set up a similar one for checking any number of original digits. It has 2 (minor) catches, not the same as glitches: 1) it won't catch 101-5, but you can easily modify it to, remembering that you must "add in" a 0 in the Replace. 2) it will produce a weird record in the case when the indexer applied the abbreviating inconsistently; 125-126 instead of 125-26. For this reason I recommend doing it as "sub/pat" instead of "sub/pat/all". I on the other hand did sub/pat/all, which is how I originally made the acquaintance of catch #2. Some type of NOT (3 digits in the second number) would fix that. Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:52:25 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Cynthia, Science Library" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Unsubscribe I'm sorry that this will be distributed to everyone, but I supposedly unscribed to this the correct way and I'm still getting messages. I love this listserv, but I will be leaving this email address in a week, so: Please unsubscribe Cynthia Grabke Thank you! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:35:23 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: potential new indexer In-Reply-To: <199509290625.XAA29400@callamer.com> Lynn, what an absolutely rhapsodic ode to indexing! I loved it, and agree with every word. Yes, I will reread the same cereal box over and over, if I can't get my hands on anything else. And "the earth moved" the day I was indexing an astronomy book that was so clearly and elegantly written that I was actually able to understand the concepts of relativity (General and Special) and get a reasonable notion of time travel. I wrote that author a personal fan letter, and treasure the book. No, I'm not about to explain it here (and obviously my understanding is at a very minimal level), but that Moment of Truth was marvelous. It kept me going right through some hideously complex and boring sections. Your note was extremely welcome, on a day when I am wrestling with doing it The Author's Way, versus doing it My Way (also known as The Right Way). Thanks for giving me the strength to go on! :-) |==========| | Sonsie | |==========| ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:38:34 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: listservs and personal mail In-Reply-To: <199509290625.XAA32247@callamer.com> On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Lynn Moncrief wrote: > Oh, Sonsie, have mercy on those of us with weak memories. ;-D Even when > someone is responding to one of my own posts, if they don't include much of > the original message it takes me a while to figure out what they're > responding to. (One reason I've turned on the SET REPRO command.) Just today, > someone posted an intriguing reply to something I must have missed and I went > rifling through the incoming mailboxes on all of my accounts trying to find > the original message. I do hope that folks will continue to include at least > the relevant portions of the messages they're responding to. BTW, I agree > with all of the rest of your message. Okay, Lynn, just for you...I had mercy. :-) The only "pet peeve" I have about quoting is that so many people don't just quote the important part, they reprint the entire message, which effectively double-sends it. So I try not to quote unless it's real necessary, and when I do, I try to quote only the paragraph or two that is really the gist. =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 03:20:33 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Harry Bass Subject: Usage Gentlefolk: Is the use of "indices" as the plural for "index" equally acceptable as "indexes"? Thank you, Harry Bass harrybass@delphi.com !!!! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:13:40 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Healy Subject: Re: listservs and personal mail In-Reply-To: <199509282246.SAA18211@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu> Seems we need some examples of personal e-mail: Congratulations Get-well wishes Concurrence or agreement with previous post ("I agree with your observations.") Off-topic comments Personal messages ("See you next week!" or "Call me when you get to town.") Thank yous A good test should be that if your post to the list is something you might write a quick note to a friend to say or pick up the phone for quick call to a colleague, it probably doesn't belong on the list. Another suggestion--please keep your quotes and snips from other posts to the essential, relevant parts rather than reproducing entire posts along with your reply. If your mailer cannot accommodate snipping, simply let us know what you are replying to in the same manner you might if you were writing a business letter and not e-mail. Index-L is simply having growing pains. That is all. Sue Healy s.healy@genie.geis.com welshone@scri.fsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:58:27 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Usage In a message dated 95-09-30 03:21:46 EDT, you write: >Is the use of "indices" as the plural for "index" equally acceptable >as "indexes"? The publications style for at least one Fortune 500 cmpany calls indices "archaic and pretentious." I never use it. Same with "appendices" vs. "appendixes." Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 10:13:06 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: personal mail, off-topic discussions, etc. In-Reply-To: <9509301412.AA02338@symnet.net> Heaven only knows if this message will be allowed on index-l, now that we are having the weary battle of the personal mail. First off, let me say that *all* listservs debate this problem. If you're subscribing to other listservs, you'll know what I mean. If not: On every listserv I've ever subscribed to, an intense debate will break out from time to time about what constitutes personal mail, what constitutes off-topic discussions, and the like. *This is normal*. As Susan Healy so aptly pointed out, index-l is just having growing pains. "Don't panic," as they say in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Second, I wanted to thank (if this is allowable) Susan Healy for defining what "personal mail" is. I think we sorely needed a definition, and I think that Susan's guidelines will be of great help to all of us. And third, could we please have a little more humor and a little less taking ourselves so incredibly seriously? Index-l is a group of *people* bound together by a common interest. Let us remember that there are people behind those computer screens. We don't need to anger or hurt or alienate each other. We have our projects to do *that*! Even though we all have a connection to indexing, what interests one person may not necessarily interest another. That's the chance we take when we post a query or a comment. How about a little more tolerance? Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "Great philosophers do not finish; they die."--David Cummiskey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 08:52:00 PDT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: Usage At 03:20 AM 9/30/95 -0400, Harry Bass wrote: >Gentlefolk: > >Is the use of "indices" as the plural for "index" equally acceptable >as "indexes"? Thank you, > Depends on whether one is working with a specific style and that style addresses spelling. I work primarily with American Psychological Association (APA), which specifies the first listed spelling in the most current edition of Webster's Collegiate. This happens to be: indexes But, Webster's notes that when two spellings are separated by _or_, they are equal variants. If there's and _or_ and the spellings are out of alphabetical order, the first spelling is considered "slightly more common than the other." The plural of index is listed as: indexes _or_ indices. Both should be fine (depending on the dictionary you use), but the style I follow, requires indexes. Best, Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com http://www.electriciti.com:80/~prider/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 11:48:19 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dave Strickler Subject: Re: Usage In-Reply-To: <199509301548.IAA17082@callamer.com> I tend to use indexes for our kind of indexes, and indices for the mathematical kind. Dave Strickler San Simeon, CA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 05:18:44 +1100 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Australian Society of Indexers Subject: Australian Soc. of Indexers Int'l Conference Proceedings due end of Oct 95 Australian Society of Indexers First International Conference Proceedings, Mar/Apr 95, Marysville, Vic, Aust The proceedings will be released at the end of October due to some delays. Apologies to those with orders. For those interested there is a whole swag of Web pages on the conference at: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aussi/auscon2.htm If you only have email, email me and I'll send you the HTML files to browse on Netscape... ;) You can skip the markup and just read it as well at a pinch. Cheers Dwight AusSI Webmaster ------- Dwight Walker Webmaster Australian Society of Indexers +61-2-3986726 (h) +61-2-4393750 (w) W-F URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aussi ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 23:31:32 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Subject: CINDEX Trick: the end! A few days ago, I posted a Cindex trick for reversing page number abbreviating. Someone whispered to me "what in the Sam-Hill are you talking about?". A brief reply to clarify and then end this thread forever. What I was referring to would be an issue if you had an index to revise by GROUP updating, i.e., either that you scanned or input or one you did yourself. If some form of abbreviation was used for the page references, the process of forming the groups would be messed up. If you try to make a GROUP consisting of the index terms used for chapter 2 of the last edition, which ran say from pages 35-50, with page reference abbreviating "ON" a record such as 145-46 ends up in the GROUP formed from the records on pages 35-50, where clearly it doesn't belong. So my trick is for "reversing" the abbreviating process to prevent this. I'm told that Macrex can do such a "back-conversion" automatically. Thus this issue and my trick would be of absolutely no concern to a Macrex user. **Please don't reply to my clarification publicly**! Send questions or further "what are you talking abouts?" to me directly. Thanks Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 23:33:53 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Subject: My old phone #! It is with **great** anxiety that I intrude and ask for the attention of all list-members for a very short time. This is unfortunately a very personal message that can't be dealt with effectively in any other way than publicly. I hope you understand. According to my ex-wife, there have been several phone messages for me recently on what was once *our* number and is now still *hers* (and her new husband's). She went absolutely and completely BALLISTIC over this. This number is still "out there" under my name on older versions of the ASI Registry. I'm not positive it involves anyone on Index-l who may have attempted to call me, but just in case I must ask: *PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE** Anyone who wishes to talk to me can do so at the number enclosed with my signature file, or by e-mailing me. **PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE** do not call **any** number but the one in my signature, and update your Registry when you have the chance if the numbers don't match. Thanks, Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711