Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 15:54:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: drumhill@aol.com Subject: Re: Need Cindex help ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- More on deliminors and braces. I use deliminors to set off publisher coding which needs to print but not sort, e.g.: <@BF>. Where deliminors need to print as part of the coding, but not affect the sort, I double them, e.g.: <>. I hope this is useful. Jim Isham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 15:55:11 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Paula Presley Subject: Re[2]: Need Cindex help In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of FRI 22 APR 1994 01:24:01 CST ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Don't put them in braces ("curly brackts") unless you don't want them to print. If you want them to print they need to be inside the "pointy brackets". I use the curly brackets with numerals when I make indexes of scripture references...assign each book of the Bible a number; sort by number, and there you have it. >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >njsmith > >I have a couple of suggestions off the top of my head. One is to try a >different sort paramenter--sor/letter instead of sor/word, for example. If >that fails, try enclosing your articles in curly braces {}. I do this for >numbers, e.g., {nineteen}1971 to get them to sort in proper sequence. If you >use set keys to do this for {a} {an} and {the}, you can save a lot of time. >Hope these suggestions work out for you. > >Jim Paula Presley Assoc. Editor, The Thomas Jefferson University Press Copy Editor, The Sixteenth Century Journal Northeast Missouri State University McClain Hall 111L Kirksville, MO 63501 (816) 785-4525 FAX (816) 785-4181 Bitnet: AD15@NEMOMUS Internet: AD15%NEMOMUS@Academic.NEMOState.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:45:16 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: ppzohav@aol.com Subject: Re: Need Cindex help ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If someone hasn't told this to you yet, you need to sort Letter by letter in order to get where you want to go. It took me a lot of head scratching and consulting to realize this. Good luck! Paul Zohav - Foxfire Indexing Svs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:46:02 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: MaryEllen Read Subject: Nixon's tape index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Someone told me that the Omaha World Herald reported last night that the index for Richard Nixon's tapes ran to 2700 PAGES. The ms itself was 100,000 pages. Is this true? Is this an awfully big index for that size ms? Just learning. Maryellen Read mread@creighton.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 15:20:01 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: drumhill@aol.com Subject: Re: Nixon's tape index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Maryellen I don't know everything. I can only relate my experience from 23 years of legal indexing. In my experience, 2700 pages would be well in the ball park for 100,000 pages of ms. That 2.7% index would be about half the size of a normal index for a nonstatutory lawbook. How law book indexes relate to Nixon's tapes, I have no idea. But there you have my opinion, for what it may be worth to you. Jim Isham ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 15:20:32 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael Kalen Smith Subject: Re: Nixon's tape index In-Reply-To: <199404281256.AA04222@metronet.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Thu, 28 Apr 1994, MaryEllen Read wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Someone told me that the Omaha World Herald reported last night that the > index for Richard > Nixon's tapes ran to 2700 PAGES. The ms itself was 100,000 pages. > Is this true? Is this an awfully big index for that size ms? > Just learning. > Maryellen Read > mread@creighton.edu Not really, no. It's equivalent to about 12pp. of index for a 400-page book -- which, based on my own back-of-the-book experience, would probably be pretty tight ... esp when you consider the very wide range of subjects and personal name entries included in the transcripts. Michael K. Smith mksmith@metronet.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It doesn't TAKE all kinds, we just HAVE all kinds ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 15:21:15 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Mrs. Julie Knoeller" Subject: Re: Nixon's tape index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- That's only one index page per 37 transcript pages (is my math correct?). Depending on the density of the transcription, that doesn't sound excessive to me. I think Chicago generally recommends a ratio significantly smaller than that, meaning a bigger index yet. (I'm not sure how this plays out for tape transcriptions, however.) julie =========================================================================