========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:36:59 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Matthew Gilmore - DC Pub. Lib" Subject: Indexing obituaries/death notices, marriages In-Reply-To: <199508311703.NAA18953@transcom.capcon.net> from "Nancy Humphreys" at Aug 31, 95 11:52:24 am ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I've looked around a little bit in the indexing literature and haven't found much about indexing death notices/obituaries, marriage notices. Some of the books I have seen have abstracted them--I'd rather index than abstract. Any advice or books I may have overlooked? Matthew Gilmore mgilmore@capcon.net D.C. Public Library Washingtoniana Division 202.727.1213 ________Celebrating the Bicentennial of the District of Columbia________ 1791-2002 * * * ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:45:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing In-Reply-To: <9508311839.AA23652@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The author of the Money Magazine article interviewed me over the phone. I didn't get quoted. (Alas! There go my fifteen minutes of fame!) When she asked me how much indexers earn, I said I figured the *most* would be about $30,000 per year, gross. I guess my answer didn't sound as sexy as the figure she used in the article. I'm one of the teachers for the USDA's correspondence course in basic indexing. The director of the USDA's Graduate School Correspondence Program contacted those of us who teach the course to let us know that the program had been swamped with 700 to 1,000 telephone calls after the Money Magazine article appeared. I expect that enrollment in Basic Indexing will skyrocket--until people start the course and see what's really involved. I always ask my USDA students why they chose to study something as "exotic" as indexing. Lots of them write something like, "I love to read, so I might as well be paid for doing so." Those are the students who tend to quit sending in lessons pretty early on. Anyway, I agree completely with Elinor. I hope clients don't think we're all out there rolling in dough. I think we assuredly deserve $50,000 per year and up; what we do is difficult, time-consuming, and brain busting. But the realities of publishing don't dictate humongous salaries. (Well, OK, if we could all write bestsellers, we'd certainly be rich.) Just my $.02. Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "Avoid fried meats which angry up the blood. If your stomach disputes you, lie down and pacify it with cool thoughts. Keep the juices flowing by jangling around gently as you move. Go very light on the vices, such as carrying on in society. The social ramble ain't restful. Avoid running at all times. Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you." (from _How to Stay Young_, by Satchel Paige) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:46:04 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Saints' Days, help for ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Hello indexers- The question is how should a saint's (feast or holy) day be indexed? My gut feel is for Saint John's Day. How-some-ever, I know very well that the saint's entry is John, Saint. This makes me think (in a bewildered sort of way) John's Day, Saint? or John's, Saint, Day <:-(. The fog on the other side of my window has roosted in my brain. Suggestions? (For Saints, Foggy) 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: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:46:20 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DP1301@aol.com Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Thank you Elinor! I agree with you, heartily. Deborah Patton dp1301@aol.com Baltimore, MD ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:46:31 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: women's studies ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Nancy, I had a variation of the issue you seem to be facing, which is indexing two types of books in one. (BTW, if I'm way off the mark here and totally misunderstood your posting, well, just move on to the next message, coming off a series of all-nighters as I am. ;-D) The two books I specifically remember were on the history of submarines. First there was the extremely technical aspect, electronic equipments, etc. This posed no problem as it was right up my alley as a former Navy electronics tech, hardware-junky that I am. The physics involved with submarine design and warfare was also pretty easy to handle because it lent itself to an easy ordering of concepts with a precise terminology. However, because they were also history books, I found myself wrestling with the challenges of indexing historical and biographical materials as well. And, unlike you, I was not experienced with this particular type of indexing. In fact, there were entries that required subentries in both categories of indexing. I couldn't select between going with a strictly chronological listing of subentries for some headings and the usual alphabetic subentry listings for others as some main entries demanded both. (I finally solved the problem by starting the chronological subentries with years (e.g. 1943 FY year program) which allowed them to float on their own to the top of the subentry list where they nicely grouped themselves, then followed them with non-chronological entries. "Brute-force" indexing technique.) Furthermore, there were officers who had entries for several ranks in their careers. And you know the indexer mentality that wants to somehow express that, even though this individual is an admiral, this particular subentry refers to what he did as a captain. ;-D Subsubentries weren't an option, BTW, as this was a run-in index. Yet another challenge was the fact that there were entries for specific submarines and ships that were the name ship of a class as well as subentries applicable to all of the ships within a given class of that same name. (Solved that with a note at the beginning of the index.) Believe me, I think I spent as much time with the Chicago Manual of Style as I did actually indexing. Of course, given Murphy's Laws of Indexing, the per-page rate was the lowest I had ever worked for because the author could pay only $2.65/page, the books were coffee-table sized (with two *dense* columns per page) and half-page long tiiiiiny-font photo captions that the publisher wanted indexed. Average indexing speed--3pp/hr! We're talking labor of love here (the books were fascinating) only to be undertaken in a time of otherwise good cash-flow and a cushion in the bank. I didn't mean for this to become a Keywords-length article, but I do want to say that I empathize with you (if indeed this is anything to the point of your message ;-D). Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs You wrote: > >----------------------------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: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:47:19 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- You wrote: > >----------------------------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. Elinor, I agree with you 1000%! Of course that hasn't stopped me from trying option #2. ;-D But even then, I haven't reached $50K. The only quality way (quality of life and of indexes) to hit $50K would be an option #4, which would be if we were able to charge higher rates. > >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? I think we'll have a real problem if editors and others that we negotiate rates with assume that we're making far more than they personally are. >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. But then again, come to think of it, the idea that we're making $50K a year just may help in terms of our professional image, being that professionalism is often associated with income levels, however falsely. ;-D You're right that a mass-media magazine, no matter how well-meaning, is not the best forum for this. What scares me is that there'll be a huge rush of people hanging out their shingles as indexers who know nothing about it, have taken no courses in it, and are not committed to indexing as a profession and an art. Then we'll get to the point where publishers will be saying, "Will the real indexers in this room please stand up?!" > >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 > Looks like ASI will have to pass out the "salt". Perhaps we should develop a single-page free brochure or flyer especially for this brouhaha. Something on the lines of "No Virginia/Virgil, there's no $50K" that would carefully give a survey of customary rates (not proposed rates), stress business expenses, etc. Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:47:29 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Converted from OV/VM to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X From: greenhouse Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing In-Reply-To: note of 08/31/95 11:51 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Elinore Lindheimer asks "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?" Um, wouldn't the clients realize they are underpaying for a valuable resource (the list discussion and personal experience leads me to understand $50K is "rather" overstated)? From the pay rate discussions, this vast sum would require indexing an 800+ page book every month! Shouldn't the clients realize what a bargain they must be getting? Who are they overpaying? If the publishers or authors claim they are paying this much, whose pocket is the difference winding up in? Am I missing something? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:47:44 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ppzohav@aol.com Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- That article in Money is sure 'nuf a bummer. I look forward to reliable 20-30k years, maybe after my kids are grown. I hope someone writes a good response to Money. See y'all sometime down the road. Paul Zohav ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:47:57 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: J.A.Lawrence@massey.ac.nz Subject: Lords and Ladies ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I am indexing a periodical that was published during the 1940-50s Some of the people mentioned were subsequently knighted so do I include their title or maybe put a note Bloggs, Joe (later Sir Joe) Any ideas welcome Regards Judy Lawrence Audiovisual Librarian Massey University Library Private bag 11054 Palmerston North New Zealand Phone 64 6 3569099 ex 7839 Fax 64 6 350 5605 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:48:30 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Uniformity in subentries ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I'd like to hear people's thoughts on an entry I'm uneasy about, because I fear I'm mixing styles improperly in the subentries. I assume the following is OK as is (i.e., without prepositions and "and"s): geometry circles, 133 conic sections, 141, 145 drafting instruments, 138, 141, 145P146 manuals, 123, 133 mensuration, 141, 152 methods of constructing figures, 138, 147P150 I would say this is analogous to: cats choosing a veterinarian kittens litter boxes The first and third subentries don't seem to need the additional "for," because the relationships between the subs and the main is clear. And certainly in the first example it would be ridiculous to add "and" in front of, e.g., "circles." The concept is part of geometry, not something being compared to geometry. So far so good. But here is the real, expanding cluster of entries I'm dealing with. Is this OK as is? geometry and architect/artisan training, 132P133, 139P140, 152P154 and arithematic, 133, 139, 140 branches of, 139, 140 circles, 133 classical influence on, 131P133, 138, 139P140, 152 conic sections, 141, 145 and cosmology, 133 drafting instruments, 138, 141, 145P146 manuals, 123, 133 mensuration, 141, 152 as metaphor for divine unity, 81, 103 methods of constructing figures, 138, 147P150 as purifying, 103P104 uses of, 132P133 Thanks y'all for any and all help. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:50:22 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: indexing choices ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >30 August 1995 > >Dear Jonathan, I share an Internet account with my husband, so this letter is actually from Glenda Browne, not Jonathan. This has caused confusion in other posts as well, but short of paying for a separate account, I don't know what to do about it. > 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). I prefer the first version. The most important thing an index does is to group subjects which are *scattered* in the book. I believe the extra detail for the content of pages 11 to 19 dilutes the subdivisions for topics such as advertising, making it less likely that the user will spot them. The extra subdivisions (such as children) are not essential; the information is accessible through the specific term (e.g. children, smoking prevalence) and could be readily found by looking through the main page range for smoking prevalence. I should perhaps also have mentioned that the book is very well structured, so that anyone looking through pages 11 to 19 would immediately spot headings for the sections on adults, children, etc. In me the indexer who prefers to be neat and compact still takes precedence, and I think (hope?) there would be times when this neatness and compactness would aid a user. If there was material throughout the book that was relevant to these subdivisions, then I *would* add the subdivisions (e.g. if children's smoking prevalence was discussed anywhere else as well, then this would be a way of grouping scattered information). Nancy Mulvaney in Indexing Books says (I think, from memory) that the index should not be a de facto table of contents. She gives an example where subdivisions with the *same* page numbers should be combined. This, I think, is nearly always indisputible. In cases like this one where the extra subdivisions refer to a range of pages it is obviously not so clear cut (although I have to admit that most people preferred the longer version). I think another influence on my preference is that it is rare to index a book with absolutely no page limits. > >#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." This is what I did. Since this whole book was about smoking and tobacco I had to decide whether to use 'tobacco ...' or 'cigarette ...' as adjectives, or whether to omit them (e.g. 'additives' versus 'tobacco additives'). I decided to omit 'cigarette...' and 'tobacco...', and made a note in the introduction. However I found there were cases such as 'prevalence', where the heading without the word 'smoking' could be ambiguous (in a book on smoking, prevalence of other things could be discussed). > >#3. No. I would still handle it as in answer #2. I would only expect that people might have changed their minds if they had preferred the shorter version. > >#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. I certainly don't think this would affect access. Anyone who has got as far as ACIL policy etc. would know that they were at the right place. It may, however, be important for the professional image of the index. (I used the shorter form). > >#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. I did not make this question clear. The book discusses all of the cancers on pages 45-6, and mentions many of them in other pages as well. General 'see also...' references are of some value, but are also limited because the user will not know which of the cancers have been referred to and should be looked up. In this case, however, as each cancer was discussed on pages 45-6 I thought these pages could be the prompt to suggest to the user the other cancers that might be worth looking up. Thus the briefer reference, plus a look at pages 45-6, could provide all the help the user needs. I started with "See also specific cancers" but changed it to "See also names of specific cancers" as the people checking the index did not understand the reference and looked up 'specific cancers' under S. Referring to every cancer would result in many overlap lines, and I believe that overlap lines, with their double indentions (indentations?), can be confusing to a user. Most of my decisions seem to be based on the assumption that the user is best served by the briefest possible entry (or at least an entry that fits on one line) that conveys the essential information. I guess the problem then is deciding what is the *essential* information. > > 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. I was going to send this as a private reply, but since I asked the question I feel perhaps I should reply to the list with my reasons for asking, and with my preferences. > Best wishes to you on resolving this conflict. I indexed this book for an anti-smoking organisation. The authors and coordinator had no experience of publishing, but had a commitment to the highest quality. They examined the index thoroughly, and made a number of suggestions. Some of these were useful, and I incorporated them into the index. Others made no sense at all, and I realised that it is very hard to assess an index if you don't know what to look for. One thing they looked for was consistency, complaining, for example, that I had used "crossed the placenta" at times, and "crosses the placenta" at others. The reason for the difference was purely grammatical: carbon monoxide crosses, while carcinogens cross. I also discovered how much we take for granted as indexers, as they saw no difference between "see..." and "see also...". This suggests that the simpler we can make directions in our indexes, the better they will be. Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate the input,and will keep these ideas in mind when I index. I am happy to say that this argument ended amicably, with the publisher leaving it up to me to follow whichever of their suggestions I thought would enhance the index. Glenda Browne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne Blaxland NSW Australia 061-47-398-199 jonathan@magna.com.au "From the motherboard on the sister ship to the brotherhood in the fatherland." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:52:24 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Bob Burton Subject: Software based on PRECIS ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Is there any Windows indexing software based on the Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS) that Derek Austin developed in the 1970s for the British National Bibliography? I am not on index-l, and I would appreciate a reply directly to me. Thank you in advance for your help. Bob Burton Caledonia, MI bburton@world.std.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:53:12 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: WordenDex@aol.com Subject: Poynter, 8th rev ed (1995) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The 8th rev ed of "The Self-Publishing Manual: How to Write, Print and Sell Your Own Book," by Dan Poynter (1995, 448p) contains three paragraphs (half a page) about indexing. He advises authors do it while wordprocessing, but does say, "Indexing software is available, and there are professional indexers" (paragraph 3, sentence 1 of 2). In a 45p appendix, he lists a vast number of specific resources for self-publishing authors. ASI or its "Indexer Locator" is not among them. Throughout his book, Poynter encourages readers to contact him about corrections or additions for his next edition. Clever strategy; he alwasys has a new version being created by others. Has anyone submitted suggested copy upon reading any of his previous editions? What happened (accepted, ignored, co-opted)? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:53:31 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jennifer Comeau Subject: words per book page ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Nancy Humphreys wrote, >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? A common book design is 2600 characters per page (65 characters of 10-point type at 26-pica line length and 40 lines per page). Another *very* rough figure I once heard is that the book will have about 80 percent of the pages of the original MS, though my personal experience suggests it's closer to 65-70 percent--but of course this also depends on the font, point size, and margins in the original MS. However, there can be wide variation in words per page, especially if the MS in question is somewhat unusual/experimental in content. I hope this helps. Jennifer L. Comeau Project Editor University of Nebraska Press jcomeau@unlinfo.unl.edu (402) 472-7703 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:28:34 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Maya Jones Subject: Indexing software ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I am a library service student who is interning at a nearby university library. My internship entails indexing the university magazine. I am thinking about using procite to index this periodical. I would like to find out about other programs, which are used to index periodicals. Price and and software documentation are my major concerns. I would appreciate any information on this subject. Thank you Maya Jones I can be reached at MJones3@ua1vm.ua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:28:46 ECT Reply-To: nharwood@grad.usda.gov Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: nharwood@grad.usda.gov Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The Indexing FAQ from ASI states the net income per year quandry very well, I think. We are using this information for those that call and for all new students. Thanks ASI for being so thorough. Norma Harwood, Director Correspondence Program Graduate School, USDA nharwood@grad.usda.gov http://grad.usda.gov/corres/corpro.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:28:58 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Saints' Days, help for In-Reply-To: <199509060913.CAA11346@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In the spirit of and, for, in, etc., how about indexing by the Saint's name, and ignoring the St. title: J jalopy jerky St. John June However, Chicago (appeal to authority?) says to index "under their given, or Christian, names: Catherine of Siena, Saint; Thomas, Saint (17.88). John Overbaugh On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, "Neva J. Smith" wrote: >The question is how should a saint's (feast or holy) day be indexed? >My gut feel is for Saint John's Day. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:29:12 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Mrowland@aol.com Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- While I agree with Elinor that most indexers don't make $50,000 a year, net or gross, and it is not a good idea to imply that the average person jumping into the field can expect this income, I firmly assert that at least $50,000 a year gross is within the realm of possibility for an experienced, qualified indexer. I don't know about the rest of you, but **I'm** worth $50,000 (at the very least!) and I make estimates/proposals on the basis of earning $1,000 per week. My concern has always been that I am charging too little, not too much (because I do not make $50,000/year unless I supplement indexing with writing and other forms of consulting). Yes, I frequently lose jobs to people willing to do the job for less, but, just as frequently, I get the publisher to pay me more than they pay other indexers, and I have many long-term clients. I would much rather a client think that I am a highly-paid professional than not. I see no problem with editors paying indexers more per hour than they are getting themselves. Think of an indexer as a consultant, not a "freelancer." Most editors I work for have salaried jobs, paying benefits and providing them with an office, computer, e-mail, vacations, health benefits, etc. We must factor these costs into our rates and not think about our gross incomes as being equal to salaries. The Freelance Editorial Association (of Cambridge MA) has had a great influence on me and how I set my rates. It published an excellent article on this topic some years back, explaining that freelancers have to charge double what he or she wants to earn as a "salary" to pay for the costs of doing business (from office supplies to health benefits). Several years ago, I sent a copy of the article to a publisher who paid his other indexers $13/hour. I asked for, and received, $3/page. Not a huge sum, but more than $13/hour! The editor found the article very interesting. He hadn't really considered freelancer (consultant) costs of doing business before. I still work for this publisher (at a higher rate, now). Hazel jokingly wrote: ""Since I'm only making $49,999, what am I doing wrong?" I thnk that is what we should focus on.-- improving our work practices to best reward our efforts. Barbara wrote: "...it would be interesting to know what the "average" indexer makes, but we've always shied away from publishing this sort of information..." I agree that ASI should have a better idea of how much indexers actually make. I know that there are some "rate-setting" issues involved, but, I do think ASI needs to have some good information about what indexers earn (per hour/per year) so that we can better serve the needs of indexers and the profession. Marilyn Rowland Falmouth, Cape Cod, MA President, MA Chapter, American Society of Indexers Member, Board of Directors, American Society of Indexers . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:29:30 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing In-Reply-To: <199509061011.DAA11786@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Has anyone thought of a letter to the editor of Money Magazine? I think if the President or board of ASI were to draft a letter, it has a high chance of being published. It'd be a good way to set the record straight. John Overbaugh Torn from his state of casual lurking ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:29:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: Money Magazine article on indexing In-Reply-To: <9509061009.AA23357@carson.u.washington.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Interestingly enough, there's a thread currently running on the DorothyL (Mystery Lovers) discussion list about writers' incomes and whether/when they gave up their day jobs to write full-time. (There are a LARGE number of well-known authors who actively participate in the list - Joan Hess, Parnell Hall, Jill Churchill, among others.) The consensus among the authors seems to be that most CAN'T afford to give up the day jobs; royalties and advances simply aren't enough to pay the bills. One very well-known author said that she was lucky to clear $20,000/yr from her writing; and she writes best-sellers. So they tend to be teachers, librarians, advertising execs, reporters, actors, etc., to pay the bills, often paying their own ways to book-signings and conventions, who would love to write full-time but just haven't got the nerve to leave the security of a regular paycheck (and benefits!) to write full-time. Sounds very much like a certain librarian/indexer whom I know intimately... Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, Wa. e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/930-4348 On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Hazel Blumberg-McKee wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Anyway, I agree completely with Elinor. I hope clients don't think we're > all out there rolling in dough. I think we assuredly deserve $50,000 per > year and up; what we do is difficult, time-consuming, and brain busting. > But the realities of publishing don't dictate humongous salaries. (Well, > OK, if we could all write bestsellers, we'd certainly be rich.) > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:29:58 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Uniformity in subentries ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Carol Roberts wrote: >I'd like to hear people's thoughts on an entry I'm uneasy about, because I >fear I'm mixing styles improperly in the subentries. I assume the following >is OK as is (i.e., without prepositions and "and"s): < friendly snip> >I would say this is analogous to: > >cats > choosing a veterinarian > kittens > litter boxes Just as a personal opinion, I would tack the word "for" onto the end of that first subentry for cats. I had an amusing image of cats pawing through the Yellow Pages entries under veterinarians. ;-D Now, as for your "real" entries which follow: >geometry > and architect/artisan training, 132P133, 139P140, 152P154 > and arithematic, 133, 139, 140 > branches of, 139, 140 > circles, 133 > classical influence on, 131P133, 138, 139P140, 152 > conic sections, 141, 145 > and cosmology, 133 > drafting instruments, 138, 141, 145P146 > manuals, 123, 133 > mensuration, 141, 152 > as metaphor for divine unity, 81, 103 > methods of constructing figures, 138, 147P150 > as purifying, 103P104 > uses of, 132P133 I think you made excellent choices on which ones to use "and" with. You may be able to get away with omitting "and" from the first subentry or you could replace it with "in" as in "in architect/artisan training". IMHO "and" is essential for the subentries "arithmetic" and "cosmology" where someone may otherwise confuse them as being subsets of geometry. BTW, just as a purely personal preference, I usually tack "and" onto the end of a subentry unless there is a strong semantic reason for using it as the first word. (Rare, but it does happen.) Those are interesting page ranges, BTW, with "P" instead of a hyphen or en dash. Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:30:09 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: indexing choices ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Glenda (not Jeremy ;-D) wrote: >Nancy Mulvaney in Indexing Books says (I think, from memory) that the index >should not be a de facto table of contents. She gives an example where >subdivisions with the *same* page numbers should be combined. This, I think, >is nearly always indisputible. In cases like this one where the extra >subdivisions refer to a range of pages it is obviously not so clear cut >(although I have to admit that most people preferred the longer version). This is a rule I too try to follow. However, I combine them at the editing stage after making all entries. The reason is that the subentry for one of those same page subdivisions may generate additional page references that are not identical to the page references for the other subdivision. To immediately combine them may cause a loss of resolution or granularity, so to speak, that may be difficult to recover later on. >I started with "See also specific cancers" but changed it to "See also names >of specific cancers" as the people checking the index did not understand the >reference and looked up 'specific cancers' under S. I think typography can be a help here (if the problem was partially caused by "specific cancers" being set in roman). If the general cross-reference is completely in italics, making it visually different from the other target entries (if any), the reader is clued that it's not referring to an entry titled "Specific cancers". Your solution was a good one. A common variation of it (at least here in the States) is "See also entries for specific cancers". >don't know what to look for. One thing they looked for was consistency, >complaining, for example, that I had used "crossed the placenta" at times, >and "crosses the placenta" at others. The reason for the difference was >purely grammatical: carbon monoxide crosses, while carcinogens cross. Perhaps wording these subentries as: "crossing placenta" could have created the consistency your clients were looking for, if you're comfortable with the style of that. That also eliminates the shift in verb tense as well as the article "the". > I am happy to say that this argument ended >amicably, with the publisher leaving it up to me to follow whichever of >their suggestions I thought would enhance the index. Now that's a happy ending! :-D Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:30:22 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pmauer@aol.com Subject: Re: Indexing obituaries/death notices, marriages ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 95-09-06 07:17:56 EDT, mgilmore@capcon.net (Matthew Gilmore - DC Pub. Lib) writes: >indexing death notices/obituaries, marriage notices. >Some of the books I have seen have abstracted them--I'd rather index than >abstract. Any advice or books I may have overlooked? I have seen a couple of documents, but they mostly repeat or summarize what Nancy Mulvany says in her book, _Indexing Books_ and the 14th Edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. One of them is _Indexing Family Histories_, by Patricia Law Hatcher & John V. Wylie (ISBN 0-915156-73-3). Also, there was an article, "Every-Name Indexing" by James N. Jackson, in the July/August 1992 issue of KeyWords. And Hazel K. Bell's book, _Indexing Biographies_ probably has some helpful info in it, but I haven't seen a copy of that myself. Personally, I'd say that Nancy Mulvany and Chicago Manual of Style provide the most valuable guidelines. Good Luck! Peg Mauer Communication Link ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:30:32 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Saints' Days, help for ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Neva wrote: > >The question is how should a saint's (feast or holy) day be indexed? >My gut feel is for Saint John's Day. >How-some-ever, I know very well that the saint's entry is John, Saint. >This makes me think (in a bewildered sort of way) John's Day, Saint? or >John's, Saint, Day <:-(. ROFL! I'd go with your gut feeling because you are actually indexing the name of a feast day vs. indexing the name of a saint. BTW, unless the author actually uses the term "holy day" for this day, I'd use "feast day" if you need to use that term somewhere. "Holy day" implies a holy day of obligation in Catholicism, which St. John's feast day is not. (At least, not last I heard. ;-D). Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:30:49 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Marcel CoumontBeisig Subject: Re: Lords and Ladies In-Reply-To: <199509060655.XAA11773@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Tue, 5 Sep 1995 J.A.Lawrence@massey.ac.nz wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > I am indexing a periodical that was published during the 1940-50s > > Some of the people mentioned were subsequently knighted so > do I include their title or maybe put a note > > Bloggs, Joe (later Sir Joe) > > Any ideas welcome > > Regards > Judy Lawrence > Audiovisual Librarian > Massey University Library > Private bag 11054 > Palmerston North > New Zealand > Phone 64 6 3569099 ex 7839 > Fax 64 6 350 5605 > As an amateur who uses a lot of indices I would suggest: Bloggs, Sir Joseph (Joe). If there are many entries for him, cross reference with `Bloggs, Joe'. That is where I would look. Best wishes Marcel. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:31:09 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: BWURF@delphi.com Subject: Carol's query on geometry subheadings ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On September 5, Carol Roberts wrote: "I'd like to hear people's thoughts on an entry I'm uneasy about, because I fear I'm mixing styles improperly in the subentries. I assume the following is OK as is (i.e., without prepositions and "and"s): geometry circles, 133 conic sections, 141, 145 drafting instruments, 138, 141, 145P146 manuals, 123, 133 mensuration, 141, 152 methods of constructing figures, 138, 147P150 But here is the real, expanding cluster of entries I'm dealing with. Is this OK as is? geometry and architect/artisan training, 132P133, 139P140, 152P154 and arithematic, 133, 139, 140 branches of, 139, 140 circles, 133 classical influence on, 131P133, 138, 139P140, 152 conic sections, 141, 145 and cosmology, 133 drafting instruments, 138, 141, 145P146 manuals, 123, 133 mensuration, 141, 152 as metaphor for divine unity, 81, 103 methods of constructing figures, 138, 147P150 as purifying, 103P104 uses of, 132P133 Thanks y'all for any and all help. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good." ...................................................................... Carol-- Here is my suggestion. What about breaking the main heading "geometry" into two main headings, "geometry" and "geometrical figures"? (Some of the subheadings pertain to geometry as a field of study, and some apply to geometrical figures. Your index would look like this: geometry and architect/artisan training, .... and arithmetic, .... branches of, .... classical influence on, .... and cosmology, ... drafting instruments, ... manuals, ... as metaphor for divine unity... as purifying, ... uses of, ... geometrical figures circles... conic sections, .... construction methods,... mensuration, ... Barbara Wurf BWURF@delphi.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:31:24 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: Saints' Days, help for ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Hello indexers- > >The question is how should a saint's (feast or holy) day be indexed? >My gut feel is for Saint John's Day. So is mine. I've never related to the inverted format, and I don't think it would be consulted in a book index. Glenda. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne Blaxland NSW Australia 061-47-398-199 jonathan@magna.com.au "From the motherboard on the sister ship to the brotherhood in the fatherland." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:32:02 ECT Reply-To: edserve@klyle.demon.co.uk Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kathleen Lyle Subject: Re: Lords and Ladies ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > do I include their title or maybe put a note > > Bloggs, Joe (later Sir Joe) > I've often seen it done this way. Memebers of the aristocracy can be even more of a problem because they can change their titles as senior members of the family die off, necessitating cross-references. I'm sure there has been an article or a letter on this in the Indexer in recent years. Kathleen Lyle Kathleen Lyle ## editorial services 43 Brighton Terrace Road ## +114 268 5221 Sheffield S10 1NT ## edserve@klyle.demon.co.uk