From: SMTP%"LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu" 8-JAN-1998 15:22:08.85 To: CIRJA02 CC: Subj: File: "INDEX-L LOG9711E" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:57:49 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9711E" To: CIRJA02@GSVMS1.CC.GASOU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:04:23 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: co-ops My apologies if this is the second time you've seen this posting. I'm not sure whether or not it went thru when I tried to send it last nite. Lori --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- RE: Re: co-ops In response to Kevin Broccoli (nifkev@jumo.com), who asks about co-op arrangements .... I don't believe I was part of the discussion you're referring to; however, I do have some experience that may be of interest to you. I've had four interns from the technical communications degree program at Metro State College in Denver. Three of those four worked out very well; in other words, their internship benefitted them and, after they acquired some indexing and editing skills, their internship benefitted me as well. They each paid Metro State for the number of credits they wanted to earn through their internship with me; their options were 150 hours/semester with me for 3 credit hours or 300 hours/semester with me for 6 credit hours. Two of the three successful interns earned 6 credit hours during their internship with me; also, one of them became one of my subcontractors. Note: the interns did not pay me, and they understood that I could not pay them for the time I spent with them in one-on-one mentoring. Essentially, the interns and I were both taking a risk; we were both hoping that the internship experience would be beneficial to both of us. Among the benefits I enjoyed were: - a fresh set of eyes to help with editing my indexes - another pair of hands to enter my markups into CINDEX - companionship (which, as an independent contractor, I value) - insights acquired through teaching them that I could apply to my Indexing Skills Workshop for Technical Communicators, which I deliver to corporate clients - a potential subcontractor to help me when I'm in crunch mode. On the *down* side, from my perspective, I realized that each of the interns I got from Metro State would graduate and accept positions as technical writers, making "real money", and I'd have to start all over again, training someone else who would eventually move on. No doubt you're wondering what the interns got from their experience with me. Hopefully, some of the benefits to them included: - an opportunity to acquire skills that future employers would appreciate (and value) - practical experience in indexing technical documentation - practical experience in editing indexes - a good idea of what it takes to be a successful freelancer - indexes they could include in their portfolios - marketable skills - some income after they acquired skills useful to me. Currently, I do not have an intern from Metro State. However, I do have an apprentice who shows a great deal of potential. She comes to my office whenever both of us can fit the time into our schedules. She has the skills I value most (initiative, intelligence, self-discipline, and analytical skills), and I think she's making excellent progress. Although my husband & I will soon be moving from Colorado to North Carolina, I intend to continue mentoring my current apprentice -- via e-mail, snail mail, phone conversations, or whatever it takes. Why? - Because I believe that she shows a great deal of potential and, consequently, this apprenticeship can be beneficial to both of us. Now, back to co-op arrangements .... if you're talking about cooperative marketing arrangements, I would be very hesitant to enter into such an arrangement without knowing a LOT about the quality of the indexes produced by others in the co-op. I do occasionally refer clients to other professional indexers; however, I will do that *only* if I know the quality of the other indexer's work because, ultimately, those clients will remember that I was the one who referred them to that indexer. If the client is satisfied with that indexer's work, my reputation is still intact; however, if the client is not satisfied, my reputation may suffer ... and I'm not willing to take that chance. That's why any interns or apprentices who work with me often stand the best chance of getting referrals when I can't take on projects myself. The bottom line is the old cliche that says you're judged by the company you keep. Happy indexing .... Lori P.S. Altho' my mailing address (shown below) will change soon, my e-mail address and URL will remain the same. *********************************************************************** Lori Lathrop ---------->INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 Office: 303-567-4447, ext. 28 / Fax: 303-567-9306 URL - http://idt.net/~lathro19 (note: that's a "nineteen" at the end) *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:29:26 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing I use subheadings with virtually every heading in the first pass thru an index, on the theory that it's easier to take 'em out in the final edit than to have to go back and look up each entry to add them once you discover that you have 8 unanalyzed locators for a main heading. As a result, my final draft is usually about a third shorter than the original one. My only complication with this method is that I'm getting arthritis in my 'delete' finger (which has taught me to use a light touch on the keyboard)! Regards, Carolyn Weaver In a message dated 97-11-28 22:52:06 EST, you write: << I guess what I'm asking is if there a virtue in analyzing locators even when there are only a few when you are doing a deep index, or is it better to leave things unanalyzed? I have an opinion, but I don't want to prejudice the argument. >> ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:01:35 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael Brackney Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing At 11:23 AM 11/28/97 -0700, Heather Jones wrote: >Here's a hypothetical question: > >Suppose you are asked to do a deep index. You have no line limit, but you >are not asked to pad the index, either. You have as a main heading the name >of a person, followed by 4 or 5 locators. Since it is a deep index, do you > >a. analyze all the locators, since it is a deep index? >b. leave them unanalyzed, since there are so few? >c. analyze or not depending on content? > >What if there are only 2 or 3 locators? > >One of the locators might point to a sentence like "John Smith, born in 1775 >in Munich, had this to say about turnip seeds...", for which your analysis >would give > >Smith, John, or Smith, John, 16 > on turnip seeds, 16 > >I guess what I'm asking is if there a virtue in analyzing locators even when >there are only a few when you are doing a deep index, or is it better to >leave things unanalyzed? I have an opinion, but I don't want to prejudice >the argument. Heather: I'd choose option "c." no matter how many locators there might be. In your example I'd include the subheading, and if there were more subheadings (with different locators) under "Smith, John" I'd include the unanalyzed locator as well -- to point to the birth date information about him. Michael Brackney Indexing Service 134 Kathleen Way Grass Valley, CA 95945 916 272-7088 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:47:20 -0500 Reply-To: maria@usaor.net Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Maria Subject: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? If anyone who was kind enough to respond to my first post asking for advice doesn't want me to pass it along to the people who are interested in that information, please let me know. Otherwise I will send them along to others who could benefit from them as well. Since I was publicly rebuked for offering to send on the posts, I must say that I wasn't aware of such a rule on internet mailing lists. In fact, since people were willing to give advice to a complete stranger, it seems to me that they wouldn't mind if that information was passed along. I know I wouldn't. But if you do, let me know and I will honor your request. Maria Lauro ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:26:41 -0600 Reply-To: bookend@theonramp.net Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Danzi Hernandez Subject: Uses for Indexes Hello Everyone, I just came across an old English grammar book that caught my eye. It is titled "English 3200 Third Edition with Index," by Joseph Blumenthal. I remember using it in high school. I thought the title was interesting because it mentions the presence of an index. And the preface has this to say: "Besides offering a handy reference, the index is a useful aid for planning remedial and review exercises. When students reveal that they have not yet mastered a particular concept, the instructor, by consulting the index, can guide them to review the appropriate frames." So the index is not only a marketing tool and an information retrieval device, but a learning aid as well! Susan Hernandez ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 08:37:50 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In a message dated 97-11-29 18:52:28 EST, you write: << Since I was publicly rebuked for offering to send on the posts, I must say that I wasn't aware of such a rule on internet mailing lists. In fact, since people were willing to give advice to a complete stranger, it seems to me that they wouldn't mind if that information was passed along. >> Maria - I think I did reply to you and can't remember if my reply was public or private. But in essence, it makes a great deal of difference to me whether or not I reply on- or offlist. A reply sent offlist is intended to be private and not for general publication without permission. It's the difference between writing a note to my kids, which may contain in-jokes and family gossip, and a Letter to the Editor on the same general topic, which is INTENDED to be read by complete strangers. I, for one, would want to review what I said before it is forwarded -- at least, if I am attributed as the source. Carolyn Weaver ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:09:36 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Wilkerson Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? Maria I am glad this came up I would have never thought I needed permission to send on response to a question I had ask onlist. I have in fact done it myself. But now I can see why I shouldn't have and I guess I am going to have to apologize to that person. Actually I don't know why they all didn't response on list. That is what Index-L is for. I know that there could have been others that may have benefit from it. But they probably felt it was just a reharsh of things that have come up over and over. However, there are always new people joining Index-L and though it might be old news to others it is still new news to them. For you to go to the trouble of sending it to others is generous of you and would take a considerable amount of time to edit each letter. However since you are a complete stranger to everyone I doubt you would have to edited out more than the Hi's and byes. I hope I haven't opened another can of worms. This may sound a little scarcastic but it's not meant to be. All I am saying in a nut shell I am glad I found this out too before I did the same thing again. If it has been a letter from my mother or personal friend I would have questioned sending it. I would have just assume that everyone sent it off list so as not to bore the rest of those that already knew all of it. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 08:51:50 -0700 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Philip and Heather Jones Subject: analysis in deep indexing Thanks to those who responded to my initial question about this. Let me clarify my question: Assuming you've gone through the index and analyzed EVERYTHING, and assuming space is not a problem, is it better to a. Keep the analysis Smith, Carl, 14, 65 divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 where 14, 65 are included because there was incidental discussion of other possibly interesting information? The reason for keeping these entries would be that they point to very specific information, thus saving the reader time. or b. Collapse the entry to Smith, Carl, 14, 25, 65, 75 Reasons for doing this might be to keep the index from unnecessary clutter, to possibly sell more books (a person looking through the index can't tell whether or not there is discussion of Carl's view on poststructuralism, so she might buy the book), and because my choice of subentries might not reflect what the reader wants to know, even if it really is there in an incidental phrase. Opinions? Heather /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | There are such things as cause and effect, but they have nothing to | | do with each other... | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Phil, Heather, Doug and Ivy Jones hpjones@rt66.com | | Los Alamos, NM | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:06:27 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Barbara Mullinix Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In-Reply-To: <199711301410.JAA07356@ kis.net> At 09:09 AM 11/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >Maria I am glad this came up I would have never thought I needed permission >to send on response to a question I had ask onlist. I have in fact done it >myself. But now I can see why I shouldn't have and I guess I am going to have >to apologize to that person. > >Actually I don't know why they all didn't response on list. That is what >Index-L is for. I know that there could have been others that may have >benefit from it. But they probably felt it was just a reharsh of things that >have come up over and over. However, there are always new people joining >Index-L and though it might be old news to others it is still new news to >them. > > I'm glad this came up too. I have sometimes waited in vain for answers to questions such as Richard Evans' 10-26 on "Column Continuation" or Martha Osgood's 11-18 "Four Plump and Juicy Ones." I am beginning to wonder if a lot of the good stuff goes on privately and the chit-chat gets distributed. While I enjoy the chit-chat, the real reason I spend time reading this list every day is for information--like the discussion on moonlighting or Christine Shuttleworth's comment on captions. I guess this boils down to a plea for a more liberal interpretation of what might be interesting to subscribers at large. Indexers seem to come in all sorts of packages, so it follows that their definitions of what is new would also be highly variable. Barb Mullinix Beeline Index Writing Service Emmitsburg, MD > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:44:00 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ann Norcross Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing Philip and Heather Jones wrote: > Thanks to those who responded to my initial question about this. Let me > clarify my question: > > Assuming you've gone through the index and analyzed EVERYTHING, and assuming > space is not a problem, is it better to > > a. Keep the analysis Smith, Carl, 14, 65 > divorce, 14 > laundry sorting methods, 25 > television appearances, 75 > on turnip seeds, 65 > where 14, 65 are included because there was incidental discussion of other > possibly interesting information? The reason for keeping these entries would > be that they point to very specific information, thus saving the reader time. > > or > > b. Collapse the entry to Smith, Carl, 14, 25, 65, 75 I would not do either of the above. I would do this: c. Keep the analysis Smith, Carl, divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 This brings up, of course, the oft discussed issue of locators on the primary. I'm against 'em. > Reasons for doing this might be to keep the index from unnecessary clutter, to > possibly sell more books (a person looking through the index can't tell > whether or not there is discussion of Carl's view on poststructuralism, so > she might buy the book), Hmmmmm. As a shopper/reader, looking for Carl Smith on poststructuralism, I would not be likely to buy the book if I couldn't find the info in the index. Seeing a string of undifferentiated locators, my response (and this is, of course, just *me,") would be 1) to assume that poststructuralism did not play a big enough part in old Carl's life to merit an entry in the index, and 2) I would take a quick look at each indexed page just to make sure. I would not assume that there was so much stuff about it that the index did not have room to go into detail. Again, this is just me; other shoppers/readers may react differently. Of course, I would also look for "poststructuralism, the Smith years" or some such in the index. Ann Norcross Crossover Information Services ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:47:35 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ann Norcross Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? Barbara Mullinix wrote in response to the thread about not re-poting private replies: > I'm glad this came up too. I have sometimes waited in vain for answers to > questions such as Richard Evans' 10-26 on "Column Continuation" or Martha > Osgood's 11-18 "Four Plump and Juicy Ones." I am beginning to wonder if a > lot of the good stuff goes on privately and the chit-chat gets distributed. > While I enjoy the chit-chat, the real reason I spend time reading this > list every day is for information--like the discussion on moonlighting or > Christine Shuttleworth's comment on captions. > > I guess this boils down to a plea for a more liberal interpretation of what > might be interesting to subscribers at large. Indexers seem to come in all > sorts of packages, so it follows that their definitions of what is new > would also be highly variable. Yes, please! If INDEX-Lers get tired of a topic, they speak up. Please err on the side of repeating old topics rather than posting privately; there are lots of newcomers, that's true, but there are also people who have been here a while, and who maybe, for instance, never were interested in a thread about column continuation bcause it hadn't come up in any assignments they had. If the topic comes up again, they might be intrested. Very interested. Ann Norcross Crossover Information Services ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:25:21 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In-Reply-To: <199711300513.XAA23231@mixcom.mixcom.com> >Since I was publicly rebuked for offering to send on the posts, I must >say that I wasn't aware of such a rule on internet mailing lists. Maria, it's not a rule, just a courtesy. Or you could think of it as a rule of thumb: If someone posts publicly, then the message was intended to be read by all. If they e-mail you privately, then it *might* be because the message contains something they consider private (sometimes for legal reasons, e.g., if someone is talking about how much to charge and doesn't want to get into price-fixing trouble with the IRS)--regardless of what you yourself would mind. I don't quite remember what was in my e-mail to you (or even whether I sent it off-list), but you may distribute it to others. Cheers, Carol Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:26:32 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Wilkerson Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In a message dated 97-11-30 13:31:36 EST, you write: << if someone is talking about how much to charge and doesn't want to get into price-fixing trouble with the IRS >> Does this mean we shouldn't quote prices of software or equipment and such on Index-L? and what about the chat log where we talk freely about prices? I think I may have done that too. :( Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:39:05 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Wilkerson Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing In a message dated 97-11-30 10:46:10 EST, you write: << a. Keep the analysis Smith, Carl, 14, 65 divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 where 14, 65 are included because there was incidental discussion of other possibly interesting information? The reason for keeping these entries would be that they point to very specific information, thus saving the reader time. or b. Collapse the entry to Smith, Carl, 14, 25, 65, 75 >> If the whole book or even a chapter was about Carl Smith that would be a lot to put under Smith, Carl if it was index as in (b). I would prefer (a) and if there is just a paragraph and the information in (a) is all there is I would put them as subentries: Smith, Carl, 14, 65 divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:44:25 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Wilkerson Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing Sorry.....Forget the post I sent before this. I hit shift or something that sent it before I was finished typing it....lol...... Don't know what I did. Should be: In a message dated 97-11-30 10:46:10 EST, you write: << a. Keep the analysis Smith, Carl, 14, 65 divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 where 14, 65 are included because there was incidental discussion of other possibly interesting information? The reason for keeping these entries would be that they point to very specific information, thus saving the reader time. or b. Collapse the entry to Smith, Carl, 14, 25, 65, 75 >> If the whole book or even a chapter was about Carl Smith that would be a lot to put under Smith, Carl if it was index as in (b). I would prefer (a) because if I were looking up something specific I wouldn't want to have to look up every entry to see what it was about and if there is just a paragraph and the information in (a) is all there is about Carl Smith I would put them as subentries: Smith, Carl, 14, 65 divorce, 14 laundry sorting methods, 25 television appearances, 75 on turnip seeds, 65 Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:17:15 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Joanne E. Clendenen" Organization: AfterWords Indexing Services Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing On Heather's request for information on collapsing or not collapsing an entry. Given her example with only four locators, I'd collapse it. I think the user can fairly easily look up up to 5 locators without feeling undue frustration. I think too many subentries will make the index too cluttered. I will break my rule for a topic that is very general, but for which there are two or three subentries that won't come together in one phrase: Texas origins of word map of I could leave it at "Texas" plus the locators, but I think the user would be thinking "what about Texas?". Joanne -- AfterWords Indexing Services Joanne E. Clendenen email: jbclend@bigfoot.com http://www.flash.net/~jbclend ---------------- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." Einstein ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 17:12:47 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Elsa F. Kramer" Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In-Reply-To: <199711301607.LAA25098@beavis.inetdirect.net> I, too, am glad this came up. I have also wondered about offline responses to questions that interested me. One person asked for advice on bidding a job to index many years' worth of a journal, and when the answers -- if there were any -- did not appear on the list, I wrote to the person who asked the question, twice, and never received a reply of any kind. ---efk _____________________________________________ >I'm glad this came up too. I have sometimes waited in vain for answers to >questions such as Richard Evans' 10-26 on "Column Continuation" or Martha >Osgood's 11-18 "Four Plump and Juicy Ones." I am beginning to wonder if a >lot of the good stuff goes on privately and the chit-chat gets distributed. > While I enjoy the chit-chat, the real reason I spend time reading this >list every day is for information--like the discussion on moonlighting or >Christine Shuttleworth's comment on captions. > >I guess this boils down to a plea for a more liberal interpretation of what >might be interesting to subscribers at large. Indexers seem to come in all >sorts of packages, so it follows that their definitions of what is new >would also be highly variable. > >Barb Mullinix >Beeline Index Writing Service >Emmitsburg, MD >> >> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 17:19:33 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Elsa F. Kramer" Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? In-Reply-To: <199711302028.PAA26541@beavis.inetdirect.net> >In a message dated 97-11-30 13:31:36 EST, you write: > ><< if someone is talking about how much to charge and doesn't > want to get into price-fixing trouble with the IRS >> > >Does this mean we shouldn't quote prices of software or equipment and such on >Index-L? and what about the chat log where we talk freely about prices? I >think I may have done that too. :( > >Susan This takes us back to the thread about privacy. Try to make a habit of never sending anything via email that you would not want to hear read aloud in a courtroom. But to discuss pricing (as opposed to agreeing that two or more of you will try to FIX prices) is certainly OK, and should be part of what is discussed here or in the chat, don't you think? --efk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:19:24 +1100 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sandra Henderson Subject: FW: Indexing Fiction This appeared on the IFLA list, but maybe someone on this list would like to reply (direct to person in the From line) >---------- >From: N. DOMPNIER[SMTP:Clg.Laroue.Frasne@AC-BESANCON.FR] >Sent: Saturday, 29 November 1997 3:21AM >To: IFLA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA >Subject: Indexing Fiction > >I am working on the indexation of fiction in high school libraries, and >would like to know wethether I may find other people indexing fiction or >not... >NICOLAS DOMPNIER PROFESSEUR DOCUMENTALISTE CDI COLLEGE EMILE LAROUE 25560 >FRASNE FRANCE > > >*********************************************************************** >* IFLA-L is provided by the International Federation of Library * >* Associations and Institutions (IFLA). For further information about * >* IFLA activities, including organization or personal affiliate * >* information, contact: ifla.hq@ifla.nl * >* * >* URL: www.ifla.org * >*********************************************************************** > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 17:46:37 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Does anyone care if I pass along the posts? At 11:06 AM 11/30/97 -0500, you wrote: > >I'm glad this came up too. I have sometimes waited in vain for answers to >questions such as Richard Evans' 10-26 on "Column Continuation" I suspect part of it is that questions get asked in the heat of the moment. If there is not an immediate answer, the poster has probably found an answer elswhere and moved on. For instance, 10/26 was nine books ago for me, and I can't for the life of me even remember what I was asking about. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:52:50 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Steve C Subject: Re: analysis in deep indexing Regarding whether to keep subheadings for "Smith, Carl" or to collapse the subentries and use a string of four locators instead -- even if space is not an issue -- I don't follow set rules but decide on a book-by-book basis, thinking about the readers and the author's approach to assist me in my decision. (I would also query the editor for opinions or instructions.) I might wonder how many individuals will be included in the completed index. If there are few individuals indexed, then detailed subheadings might be helpful -- but if there are hundreds of people included, then the index will be very long and perhaps intimidating. If this is a detailed, scholarly book, then I would try to be as detailed as possible in the index and differentiate locators, assuming that scholarly readers and researchers will appreciate this approach. Also, are all people mentioned of equal importance? If Smith seems to be a major player (as indicated by the author's discussion), then I might be more inclined to use subheadings, but if the four locators are for passing mentions of Smith and his ideas, then I might be less inclined to use subheadings -- I would try to follow the author's approach and not give Smith more weight in the index than he has (comparatively) in the text. -- Steve Csipke ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:19:01 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Gerri Gray Subject: Re: FW: Indexing Fiction I think the French librarian who asked about indexing fiction may have been talking about subject headings for fiction in a high school library. It saves a school librarian a lot of time if she can look up historical fiction and Ancient Rome and military life Not much fiction gets subject headings in Library of Congress cataloging. Gerri ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 17:16:53 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: Macrex Question At 10:40 AM 11/28/1997 +0000, Elizabeth M. Moys wrote: >You don't say which version of Macrex you have. Assuming that it is some >variation of version 6, all you have to do to scroll up or down one line >at a time on the Inspect and Edit screen is to use the plus and minus >keys on your numeric keypad (making sure that Number Lock is OFF). If, >like me, you use a notebook, or have not got a numeric keypad, try using >ALT with the up and down cursor keys. This works fine on my machine. Betty, this is a good tip. I just got back from a Thanksgiving visit, but will check it out when I get started tomorrow morning. Hitting ESC allows me to scroll line-by-line through the screen, but every time I make a change and hit enter, I'm left at the bottom of the screen again. I hope this works. Thanks again. =Sonsie=