From: SMTP%"LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu" 7-JAN-1996 13:57:35.89 To: CIRJA02 CC: Subj: File: "INDEX-L LOG9511C" Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 08:11:06 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9511C" To: CIRJA02@GSVMS1.CC.GASOU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:14:53 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Ronald D. Doctor" Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL Subject: Re: Word Indexing function In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:18:51 ECT from ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Inserting an index in WinWord is relatively easy once you know how. First step is what you've done, inserting index terms as hidden text in the document. Next, select "Insert" on the menu bar, then "Index and Tables" from the drop- down menu. The rest is fairly straight-forward, and the "help" facility in Word is pretty good on this. Ron Doctor rdoctor@ua1vm.ua.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:15:41 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JanCW@aol.com Subject: Re: Word Vs. Framemaker ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 95-11-13 16:49:43 EST, you write: >what release of PageMaker is everyone >so happy with? I use it regularly for design and page creation when I >wear my other hat (graphic designer), but had never considered it for >indexing. I'm working on a project for a self-publisher, though, who does >use Pagemaker, and I suppose I could do the embedding that way. PageMaker's indexing hasn't changed since version 4.2, so whether you are using 4, 5, or 6 it is about the same. Version 6 has the capacity to turn an index into an interactive one if you convert the files to PDF for viewing with Adobe Acrobat. Jan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:15:56 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Seth A. Maislin" Subject: Heavy vs. Light Indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- (This is in response to Sonsie's post.) Heavy indexing, I think, is a lot easier to define -- but I guarantee that will scare away anyone who is trying to find a balance between money and quality. What I think is important to realize is that "heavy indexing" doesn't only mean "dense and long." In fact, all it means is that the indexer is going to read more carefully, rewrite the index an extra time or two, use the thesaurus a little more, consult some other indexers and technical people with less reserve, and be less afraid to "waste time asking questions." This doesn't have to make for a longer index. That's what heavy indexing means to me. The benefits of a "heavily indexed" book include more user-friendliness to both technical users and nontechnical users, more complete representation of book material, more sturdy organization, and -- the best of all -- something the author will even like. :-) So what's "light indexing"? It's a down-and-dirty job that demands less time than what's required for a good, solid index. Don't expect a light indexer to redo many first impressions when it comes to wording, to consult someone with the technical background to verify if something is as accurate as it could be, to "waste time" asking questions to those who lurk on this list, and so on. At the very least, I think a light index will have no spelling mistakes or wrong page numbers. Everything else is "simply what you paid for." Somewhere in between is the "solid index." Good organizational structure, defendable and tightened use of language, signs of technical savvy and indexing experience, user friendliness and an acceptable level of user approachability and utility, and demonstrated parallels between indexing style and author's messages and ideas. Perhaps most obvious to the indexer will be recognition of his or her own personality. In a light index, there is just no time for fine tuning and making thoughtful judgment. And in case I don't have the time to write this checklist out every time I write an index, I go by this rule of thumb: Do I want my name on this index? As an experienced indexer, frankly I get a little squeamish autographing a light index. In the least, I don't ever submit light indexes as samples to new clients. - Seth Seth A. Maislin O'Reilly & Associates 1687 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite #9 90 Sherman Street Brighton MA 02135-4836 Cambridge MA 02140 (617) 783-8502 phone (617) 499-7439 phone (617) 783-5304 facsimile (617) 661-1199 facsimile smaislin@world.std.com seth@ora.com WWW: http://jasper.ora.com:80/seth/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:07 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Wildefire@aol.com Subject: Re: Indexing Live Manuals ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 95-11-13 15:47:28 EST, you write: >Thanks for an answer to "why edit /embedded indexes/ twice?" The pain of >embedded indexing makes me wonder if even clients believe it's worth the >effort and particularly the added cost. Believe me, clients who want it do feel it's worth the added effort and cost as it saves them time downstream when they want to revise the text without reconstructing the entire index from scratch. All of the pain is felt on the indexer's end of things. :-) Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:18 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Wildefire@aol.com Subject: Re: Near-horror story ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 95-11-13 16:49:57 EST, Sonsie wrote: >But I've had some >editors who insist that I only index to the level of one subheading. When >I've questioned this, they've rather sheepishly explained it's to "save >money." When I tell them I don't charge by the number of levels of >subheads, they are relieved but also surprised. Are some folks actually >dOING this? Sonsie, I've had a few clients tell me to index only level of subheadings, but I think it is to save space more than anything else, considering that I'm charging per page vs. per entry. > >The ticklish thing, for me, is establishing a real meaning for "light" >indexing, "moderately detailed" indexing, and "heavy indexing. Nobody >wants to pay for an in-depth index, of course, and most editors insist >that all they need is an "average" or "moderate" job. What are the >criteria you would use to establish that the job does in fact require >heavy indexing as opposed to "average"? Is it the number of entries per >page? The number of page references per entry? The level of subheads? The >number of lines you end up with? As a rule of thumb, I go according to the number of entries per page. Two-three is what I consider light, average is 3-6, moderately heavy is 6-8, and heavy is 8+. But it's not as cut and dried as all that. If you're working with a coffee-table sized, double-column monster, you're likely to end up with more entries per page regardless of the exhaustiveness of your indexing. Another variable is the level of subheads. When I find myself going down to subsubs or even subsubsubs, you can bet that's some rather heavy indexing because its complexity is demanding such a fine analysis. BTW, Nancy Mulvany's book has a cool table in it for indexing levels in terms of number of entries per page vs. percentage of book length for the index. > >Ultimately, what I'd like to include in my quote form is something like >the following: > > Base rate: $X per page > Each separate > index: $X per index > Indexable > footnotes: $X extra per page > Indexable > chapter b/m $X extra per chapter > Light indexing: Subtract $X from the page rate or job rate > Heavy indexing: Add $X to page or job rate > > (And of course include a description of what I mean by "light" > and "heavy" indexing) > >Any suggestions? I wouldn't subtract for light indexing but use that as the base rate. (IMHO, publishers often say "light" when space is tight, you end up indexing as the text demands, then going through a monster edit to make it fit. That is more work than moderate indexing, wouldn't you say? But the alternative, when indexing "lightly", is constantly paging back for something you missed earlier which is just as aggravating.) As for footnotes, I haven't found them to be enough of a problem to consider charging extra for them except for the occasional humongous one that goes onto another page and crams so much indexable material in it that wasn't covered in the normal text that I've created five-ten extra entries. BTW, what does "indexable chapter b/m" mean? Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:28 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Isawriter@aol.com Subject: Re: Near-horror story ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Sonsie wrote: >Ultimately, what I'd like to include in my quote form is >something like >the following: > > Base rate: $X per page > Each separate > index: $X per index > Indexable > footnotes: $X extra per page > Indexable > chapter b/m $X extra per chapter > Light indexing: Subtract $X from the page rate or job >rate > Heavy indexing: Add $X to page or job rate > > (And of course include a description of what I mean by >"light" and "heavy" indexing) > That looks like a good start. I would add to the list a factor for wanting the index produced in a period of time that will have me working nights and weekends. That's fairly easy to judge. I would also like a factor based on the content of the book, which is a bit trickier. Hazel's Kant project should definitely qualify for a higher rate. Craig Brown ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: maryann@mnrosdp.revisor.leg.state.mn.us Subject: thesaurus construction software? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dear friends on index-l: I work with a big statutory index, almost constantly being updated, and I am being driven crazy by thesaurus upkeep. Our system, built in-house for our mainframes, is awkward to add to. It's easy for me to think I've added a term only to find later that the addition never "took." The thesaurus prevents us from using unauthorized terms, but a form change made in the thesaurus (such as adding a qualifier to clarify a term) doesn't "talk" to the index, so it's VERY hard to make a form change for a term that's already in the index. So: please tell me about some good thesaurus packages. To be useful to us, a package would have to be able to handle 5000+ terms and have at least the capability of displaying BTs, NTs, RTs, ETs, and scope notes. Thanks for any help you can give me. Maryann Corbett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:16:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Isawriter@aol.com Subject: Glossaries ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Has anyone ever been asked to provide a glossary in addition to the index? It is my understanding that the terms to be included are bold-faced in the page proofs with the definitions following them, so it would simply be a matter of accumulating them and formatting them. The publisher and I suspect it would be a per-term charge but don't know how much. Any ideas? TIA, Craig Brown :{) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:17:29 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: seminar/author-index dispute ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 15:20 13/11/95 ECT, Susan V. Pulley wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I indexed a book on hypnosis once (it was the same book I >copyedited). When finished, the author said it wasn't comprehensive >enough and wanted me to include single word references, etc. The >publisher reviewed his complaint and paid me in full (they felt the >index was very complete). However, they did not use my index, but >used one he did. I'm sure he did it on his own time and did not get >paid, so aside from deadline restraints the publiser had nothing to >lose. Except credibility with readers! After all, that's ultimately who we're working for. Jonathan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne (Blue Mountains Desktop Pty Ltd. - ACN 071 232 016) Blaxland NSW Australia jonathan@magna.com.au http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan Australian Wildlife in the Cheese Shop: "We had some, but the cat's eaten it." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:17:51 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: Word Indexing function ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 15:18 13/11/95 ECT, Alison Chipman wrote: >My workstation already has Microsoft Word for Windows, which I use >very little. However, from interest, I have tried to use it's >embedded indexing function two or three times, utterly without >success. Putting in index entries was fairly easy, if cumbersome, but >I could never actually cause the index to appear, neither on screen >nor in hard copy. The office manual for Word lacks information on >this function, aside from simply telling you that it's one option on >one of the menus. Nothing said about how to actually cause the index >to print out or to appear on screen. In Word 6.0 the command is under the Insert Menu - Insert/Index and Tables. If you choose the Index option then this compiles the index and inserts it in the document at the cursor position, between two section breaks. If you can't see the index as such it may be because Tools/Options/View/Field Codes is on, when it should be off. Jonathan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne (Blue Mountains Desktop Pty Ltd. - ACN 071 232 016) Blaxland NSW Australia jonathan@magna.com.au http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan Australian Wildlife in the Cheese Shop: "We had some, but the cat's eaten it." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:20:03 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JClendenen@aol.com Subject: To classify, or not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Here's a classification problem for the list. I'm doing an index for a book on General Motors' attempt at quality management, and I have to decide whether certain titles of programs ought to be treated as independent titles, or put under the name of the overall program they belong to. My dilemma: main topic: Quality Network program titles I've listed as separate main entries (so far): Quality Network Implementation Support Team (QNIST) Quality Network Implementation Workshops Quality Network Leadership Seminars Quality Network Problem Solving Process Quality Network Process Model Problem is, part of me finds these artificial as titles, even though they're treated as such in the book. I'm afraid people will look up Quality Network, which comes first and has a number of subentries, and never get down to the bottom and see these extra main entries. Should I put them under Quality Network-- Quality Network implementation support team leadership seminars problem solving process process model workshops Or, should I leave them as titled main entries? Quality Network already has about 16 subs. Thanks for your input. I encounter this type of problem a lot in my business books. Joanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:20:17 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: SeIndex@aol.com Subject: UK Society - Training Course ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I've just received and begun the USDA Basic Indexing Course (it looks great!), but I've also looked into the training program offerred by the Society of Indexers in the UK and have several thoughts/questions: 1. How different are US and UK indexing practices/styles? Is either style more prevalent outside the US/UK? 2. The UK course offers accredication. Is this likely to be recognized or appreciated by US publishers? 3. Has anyone taken both the USDA and the UK courses? How do they compare? Finally, I'm sure that taking the UK course would be interesting and informative (although obviously not necessary to get work in the US), but is it ultimatley worthwhile, considering the effort required? Thanks in advance, Sue Evans ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:20:31 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bob Zolnerzak Subject: Re: Rate Survey In-Reply-To: ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Re: "How do I ask for a raise from an old customer": My (way old) advice on this is: if ANY of your customers haven't complained recently that you're charging too much, you're probably charging too little. Raise your rates 10% UNTIL they start complaining you're charging too much. Then, after a year or so: repeat! Bob Zolnerzak (bobzolzk@intercom.com) 167 Hicks St., Brooklyn Hgts,NY 11201 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:28:45 ECT Reply-To: Roberta Horowitz Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Roberta Horowitz Subject: Re: thesaurus construction software? In-Reply-To: <199511161419.GAA26579@mail6> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Since you are looking at mainframe systems, you might want to check out Cuadra Associates who just released a thesaurus component to there STAR system. I have not tried that package, but we do you STAR to build an in house bibliographic database and have our own designed thesaurus on it that does what you asked about. Also, the company has a great help desk. There phone number is 310 478 0066. PS our thesaurus is 9500 terms. roberta@netcom.com On Thu, 16 Nov 1995 maryann@mnrosdp.revisor.leg.state.mn.us wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Dear friends on index-l: > > I work with a big statutory index, almost constantly being updated, and > I am being driven crazy by thesaurus upkeep. Our system, built in-house for > our mainframes, is awkward to add to. It's easy for me to think I've added > a term only to find later that the addition never "took." The thesaurus > prevents us from using unauthorized terms, but a form change made in the > thesaurus (such as adding a qualifier to clarify a term) doesn't "talk" to > the index, so it's VERY hard to make a form change for a term that's already > in the index. > > So: please tell me about some good thesaurus packages. To be useful to us, > a package would have to be able to handle 5000+ terms and have at least the > capability of displaying BTs, NTs, RTs, ETs, and scope notes. > > Thanks for any help you can give me. > Maryann Corbett > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:01 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Tessier Subject: Re: thesaurus construction software? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Dear friends on index-l: > >I work with a big statutory index, almost constantly being updated, and >I am being driven crazy by thesaurus upkeep. Our system, built in-house for >our mainframes, is awkward to add to. It's easy for me to think I've added >a term only to find later that the addition never "took." The thesaurus >prevents us from using unauthorized terms, but a form change made in the >thesaurus (such as adding a qualifier to clarify a term) doesn't "talk" to >the index, so it's VERY hard to make a form change for a term that's already >in the index. > >So: please tell me about some good thesaurus packages. To be useful to us, >a package would have to be able to handle 5000+ terms and have at least the >capability of displaying BTs, NTs, RTs, ETs, and scope notes. > >Thanks for any help you can give me. >Maryann Corbett > > I kept these references on files from my readings on thesauri. I remember the critics were very good. LIU-PALMER THESAURUS CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM (TCS) 11666 Gateway Blvd., Suite 195 Los Angeles, CA 90065-2829 Phone: (310) 390-4884 Fax: (310) 390-9270 TMS THESAURUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Pyramid Computer systems, Ltd 59 Vastern Road Reading, Berkshire RG1 8BY United Kingdom Good luck! ____________________________________________________________________________ Richard Tessier Richard Tessier Chef, Section Indexation et Chief, Indexing and Subject Analysis analyse documentaire Section (613) 995-0407 Fax: (613) 943-2187 Bibliotheque du Parlement Library of Parliament Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A9 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:13 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: Heavy vs. Light Indexing In-Reply-To: <199511161419.GAA17478@biggulp.callamer.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Thanks, Seth, for your very clear description of "hevy indexing." It's about what I would think myself. And now, a question brought up by your comment about no incorrect page numbers. How do others check for this? I output a PNO file on paper and check for oddball pages that I =know= can't be right (obvious typos, etc.). And I spot-check the index by looking up a number of citations to see whether they are indeed where I say they are. But does anyone check each and every page number? If so, what's the most efficient way to do it? Sonsie [sconroy@slonet.org] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:24 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: Near-horror story In-Reply-To: <199511161421.GAA02418@biggulp.callamer.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn, thanks for the great answers--as usual! "Indexable chapter b/m" = "Indexable chapter backmatter." I do a lot of textbooks these days, that have cases and such as part of what we would normally consider "not-indexable" stuff at the end of the chapter. I also seem to be getting more books with more indexable footnotes these days. When I was a production editor, I used to caution authors about putting substantive discussions into footnotes because so few people will read them. But I guess the practice has changed. In any event, a recent project involved so many of these long-winded notes that I decided maybe I had better invent some way of charging extra for them. Sonsie [sconroy@slonet.org] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:34 ECT Reply-To: Libis@sjumusic.stjohns.edu Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Library & Information Science Subject: ST. JOHN'S TO OFFER WORKSHOP ON BOOK INDEXING IN NYC ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS BEING PLACED ON SEVERAL LISTSERVS. PLEASE FORGIVE ANY DUPLICATIONS St. John's to Offer Workshop on Book Indexing in New York City "Indexing Books and Manuals: Principles and Techniques" is the theme of a Professional Development Seminar to be taught by Dr. Bella Hass Weinberg, Professor, Division of Library and Information Science, St. John's University, on Friday, April 26, 1996, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Sixty East Club, 60 East 42nd St., New York City (the Lincoln Building opposite Grand Central Station, the 27th floor). The fee for the seminar is $95 including lunch, coffee breaks, and handouts. There will be preregistration discounts for all, as well as lower rates for students and members of the American Society of Indexers. The seminar will introduce the preparation of "back-of-the-book" indexes, covering concepts of indexable matter, structure of index entries, cross-references, filing, format, and indexer-publisher relations. Manual and computer-assisted techniques will be discussed. Continuing Education Units (.6 CEU) will be available to those attending. Authors, publishers, information scientists, technical writers, librarians, and indexers should benefit from the seminar. The 1994 seminar was rated "excellent" by 61% of those attending, including many experienced indexers. Dr. Weinberg is a Past President of the American Society of Indexers, and former Chair of its Indexer Education Committee. She teaches graduate courses in Information Science as well as Indexing and Abstracting at St. John's. She has compiled several highly praised book indexes, and consults on the design and evaluation of indexes and thesauri. Dr. Weinberg has published extensively on indexing theory, and edited Indexing: the State of Our Knowledge and the State of Our Ignorance (Learned Information, 1989). For further information, contact: James A. Benson, Director Phone: (718) 990-6200 Division of Library and Information Science Fax: (718) 380-0353 St. John's University E-mail: libis@sjumusic.stjohns.edu 8000 Utopia Parkway Jamaica NY 11439 November 15, 1995 ______________________________________________________________________ Libis, Division of Library and Information Science Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences, St. John's University 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica NY 11439 Voice: (718) 990-6200 Fax: (718) 380-0353 BENSONJ@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:44 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Larry Harrison Subject: Re: Light, Heavy, Short, Long ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Lynn Moncrief wrote: >I wouldn't subtract for light indexing but use that as the base rate. (IMHO, >publishers often say "light" when space is tight, you end up indexing as the >text demands, then going through a monster edit to make it fit. That is more >work than moderate indexing, wouldn't you say? But the alternative, when >indexing "lightly", is constantly paging back for something you missed > earlier which is just as aggravating.) This is a sore point with me. A short index made to fit tight space requirements is MORE work than an index which reaches its natural length at the level of indexing the material demands. I'm not talking about reducing it 5% to fit, but if you have to cut it 30% that can be either a real chore or real damage to the usability of the index. On my most recent quote I stated that my base fee would result in an index of about a certain length (based on reviewing the material) and I would charge EXTRA at an hourly rate to cut the index to fit!! We'll see. Larry Harrison (larryh@millcomm.com) 507/280-0049 Freelance book indexing Rochester, Minnesota * This space available: $1 per line per week. We reserve the right * * to deprecate all submissions. No warranty expressed or implied. * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:30:02 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: Glossaries ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 09:16 AM 11/16/95 ECT, Isawriter@aol.com wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Has anyone ever been asked to provide a glossary in addition to the index? > It is my understanding that the terms to be included are bold-faced in the >page proofs with the definitions following them, so it would simply be a >matter of accumulating them and formatting them. The publisher and I suspect >it would be a per-term charge but don't know how much. Any ideas? >TIA, >Craig Brown :{) > > I did an index that was also a glossary -- an index term that would have been in a separate glossary was instead followed by the definition in a distinctive typeface, then by the subentries. The publisher provided me the glossary on disk, and I then incorporated it into Macrex, using a VERY long entry length and inserting a tag to force the definition to sort first. I didn't charge any extra for this. Elinor Lindheimer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:38:56 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: To classify, or not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 09:20 AM 11/16/95 ECT, JClendenen@aol.com wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Here's a classification problem for the list. I'm doing an index for a book >on General Motors' attempt at quality management, and I have to decide >whether certain titles of programs ought to be treated as independent titles, >or put under the name of the overall program they belong to. > >My dilemma: > >main topic: Quality Network > >program titles I've listed as separate main entries (so far): > >Quality Network Implementation Support Team (QNIST) >Quality Network Implementation Workshops >Quality Network Leadership Seminars >Quality Network Problem Solving Process >Quality Network Process Model > >Problem is, part of me finds these artificial as titles, even though they're >treated as such in the book. I'm afraid people will look up Quality Network, >which comes first and has a number of subentries, and never get down to the >bottom and see these extra main entries. Should I put them under Quality >Network-- > >Quality Network > implementation support team > leadership seminars > problem solving process > process model > workshops > >Or, should I leave them as titled main entries? Quality Network already has >about 16 subs. I would either put: Quality Network _See also specific_ Quality Network _programs_ OR Quality Network programs Implementation Support Team (QNIST) Implementation Workshops Leadership Seminars Problem Solving Process Process Model OR Quality Network Implementation Support Team (QNIST) Implementation Workshops Leadership Seminars etc. (mixed in with other subentries) My decision would be based on whether I was allowed three levels, whether the page numbers are widely disparate or close together, how much space I was allowed for the index, and how much time I hadd to make the decision. The first option always works. Elinor ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:41:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Richard S. Day" Subject: Re: Glossaries ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On 16 November at 09:16, you wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Has anyone ever been asked to provide a glossary in addition to the index? > It is my understanding that the terms to be included are bold-faced in the > page proofs with the definitions following them, so it would simply be a > matter of accumulating them and formatting them. The publisher and I suspect > it would be a per-term charge but don't know how much. Any ideas? Craig I cannot comment on the charges (I'm a software developer who writes and sometimes has to index). But I do have strong opinions on glossaries! Yes, the terms should be bold-faced, in alphabetic order, with the definitions following them. One trap to watch for: if the text contains a lot of abbreviations and the author/publisher believes they are in common usage in the field the text covers, they too should appear in the glossary. If space is a problem, cross-reference the abbreviation to the fulltext description: ( --> symbolizes a tab space below) LCD --> see Liquid Crystal Display If there are not a lot of glossary entries and you end up with something looking like: LCD --> see Liquid Crystal Display Liquid Crystal Display --> A display using twisted nematic.... Then you would want to simply show something like this: Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) --> A display using... My favorite glossaries also cross reference related terms: Uvula --> Muscular valve in the roof of the throat... (see also Sleep Apnea; Snoring disorders). Hope this helps! A good glossary can be an invaluable addition to long, technical texts. Too few have them. Ric Day ricday@mbfw451.mlnet.com ricday@msn.com 70521,2167 (CompuServe) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:41:20 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Richard S. Day" Subject: Re: Word Indexing function ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On 16 November at 09:17, you wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > At 15:18 13/11/95 ECT, Alison Chipman wrote: > > >My workstation already has Microsoft Word for Windows, which I use > >very little. However, from interest, I have tried to use it's > >embedded indexing function two or three times, utterly without > >success. Putting in index entries was fairly easy, if cumbersome, but > >I could never actually cause the index to appear, neither on screen > >nor in hard copy. The office manual for Word lacks information on > >this function, aside from simply telling you that it's one option on > >one of the menus. Nothing said about how to actually cause the index > >to print out or to appear on screen. > > In Word 6.0 the command is under the Insert Menu - Insert/Index and > tables. > If you choose the Index option then this compiles the index and inserts > it in the document at the cursor position, between two section breaks. > If you can't see the index as such it may be because > Tools/Options/View/Field Codes > is on, when it should be off. The problem with the above is, you end up with your index *inside* the Word document, which is likely where you do not want it. Worse, it restricts you to indexing one Word file, and you may have multiple files (such as chapters) which need a single index. The following (poorly documented by Microsoft) is how you can create a Word index to multiple files, and have it generated in its own document file: First, insert your indexing marks (Word's XE marks). Make sure hidden text is set to visible in the Tools|Options menu -- I usually set the color style for the index marks to something very visible, like blue or red. A shortcut: select (highlight) a word or phrase you want to index, then press Alt-Shift-X and Word's indexing dialog will open with your text in place. Alt-Shift-I works for citations and Alt-Shift-O for Toc marks. When you have indexed the file(s), save them and close them. Open a new (blank) document. With the cursor at the top of the page, choose Insert, then Field from the menu. In the dialog which opens, choose "Index & Tables" on the left and click on RD on the right. This inserts the {RD} marker in your document. Edit the marker so it looks something like this: { RD P:\\docutech\\creat1.doc } In the example, my "creat1.doc" file is in the "docutech" subdirectory on drive P: Note that I have marked the file path with two backslashes \\ instead of the usual single backslash. This is something Word needs for this task -- don't ask why; just believe me, its needed. Move to the end of the line (after the closing curly brace } and press enter. Repeat the above for each document file you want to index. Your result might look like this: { RD P:\\docutech\\creat1.doc } { RD P:\\docutech\\creat2.doc } { RD P:\\docutech\\creat3.doc } { RD F:\\work\\creat4.doc } Note as in the above example, the files can be anyplace -- they do not all have to be in the same drive/directory. Finally, put your cursor at the top of the file and choose Insert | Index & Tables then choose the Index tab on the dialog and set your options. If all goes well, Word will build your index from the cursor position down. You end up with a standalone document containing your complete index. Much easier to print and review. If the source files change, just open this index file, select (highlight) the index itself (not the RD fields) and press the F9 (update) key on your keyboard. Word will chug along and rebuild the index... Hope this helps. There is some documentation on this in Word's online help (search on RD, for example) but it is poorly presented and confusing, IMHO. I'm happy to answer anyone's questions on this -- and yes, you can do the same to create separate TOCs. That RD field is actually quite powerful, in its own, twisted way. Ric who shed blood to learn this and hopes he can spare someelse the anguish. ricday@mbfw451.mlnet.com ricday@msn.com 70521,2167 (CompuServe) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 12:43:45 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: Footnotes In-Reply-To: <199511171634.AA18805@mailer.fsu.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Sonsie C. Conroy wrote: > I also seem to be getting more books with more indexable footnotes these > days. I, too, seem to be getting ever more books with tons of indexable footnotes. More often than not, the footnotes (or endnotes) are in teensy type, so there ends up being more indexable matter on the page than there is on a page of pure text. I haven't found any way to charge more for the "more-indexable-footnotes" book. If the editor tells me that there are indeed tons of indexable footnotes or endnotes, I shift into my "well-this-is-gonna-be-a-more-expensive-index" mode. Not that the editor always agrees with me, of course! When I was a production editor, I used to caution authors about > putting substantive discussions into footnotes because so few people will > read them. But I guess the practice has changed. I, too, thought that authors were supposed to keep the substantive discussion in the text. Many of the endnotes I deal with have absolutely *nothing* to do with the text I'm indexing. I keep looking at the superscript number and then back at the endnote and wondering what I'm missing. All I can guess is that Author X wants to show you that he or she has read oh so many books on the topic--or on some peripheral topic. Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hblumber@mailer.fsu.edu) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 12:45:09 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Rate Survey ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I'm also wondering what common practice is about raising rates to >old-time customers. It's easy enough to ask for a higher rate when you >are working on a book that is clearly more complex than your normal >assignment, but what about the basic "bench rate" for the standard job? >I've been working for some companies for 15 years and of course I've >raised my rates over time, but I'm becoming more aware that I'm on the >low end of the pay scale and I'm not liking it. I'd like to boost my >"standard" book-indexing rate a fair amount. Any suggestions on how the >best way to approach this is, with good old clients? Sonsie, January is coming up. Why not just make a commitment to raise your rates across the board in January? When clients call, you can say something like, "In January, I raised my rates to such-and-such, to keep pace with inflation and with the industry norm." OK, maybe that last bit is iffy--you don't to raise the specter of price fixing. But if you make that commitment, then you don't have to hem and haw with each phone call, you'll feel less tempted to make exceptions for old clients, and so on. BTW, an indexer I met at the Montreal conference (who will remain nameless unless she wants to identify herself) says she raises her rates *every January*. I don't know if I would do it every January, but I'm thinking about it. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 12:45:22 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: maryann@mnrosdp.revisor.leg.state.mn.us Subject: thesaurus thanks ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Thanks to all who responded to my cries of pain about thesaurus construction. I received a number of replies on and off the list. Now to send for materials, collar the computer staff, and beg for funding (groan). I'm always grateful for the help of the members of this list. Maryann Corbett maryann.corbett@revisor.leg.state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 16:31:01 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli@aol.com Subject: Name-date index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- My next index due from the publisher is a long tome of essays on French history. The publisher suggested I might want to do a "name-date" index. I haven't come across that term yet. (I've been indexing for less than a year.) I'm assuming he means something like: Louis XIV (date), 5 (date2), 15 (date3), 13 with the dates in chronological order. So I'm essentailly indexing references to people based on the time of the occurence given in the text. Am I on track here? I'd appreciate comments from those with experience in this type of index. Fred Leise "Between the Lines" Indexing and Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:12:23 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "C.JACOBS" Subject: Re[2]: Light, Heavy, Short, Long In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Fri, 17 Nov 1995 11:29:56 EST ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- RE: differences in rates for heavy and light indexing Most of the effort in indexing is in the reading, the construction of the intellectual framework, and the refining of the structure and vocabulary. The heavier the index the more time you have to spend on the second and third elements. However, the first element always has to be done, and the time spent on the others is not necessarily proportionately less for light indexing. When clients mention that something needs only a light index, I immediately point out that the essential work remains the same. The end result _may_ be that it costs less than for a light index because it takes less of my time to deal with the various elements, but that depends on the actual content, the level of difficulty in analysis, clarity of headings, and a lot of other factors. All of which adds up to my philosophy that charging by time is the safest. If you must charge by other than an hourly rate, calculate it out so that you are making the appropriate amount. If you feel that you need to charge differential rates for different kinds of material, or because of specialized knowledge you can bring to the project, work that into the rates. But always keep in mind that even if the index looks simple, it was not necessarily simple to create. Like many other simple, but beautiful things in life a simple index does not necessarily come cheap; sometimes it is the reverse. Christine Jacobs Montreal incj@musicb.mcgill.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:13:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: To classify, or not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 09:20 16/11/95 ECT, Joanne wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Here's a classification problem for the list. I'm doing an index for a book >on General Motors' attempt at quality management, and I have to decide >whether certain titles of programs ought to be treated as independent titles, >or put under the name of the overall program they belong to. > >My dilemma: > >main topic: Quality Network > >program titles I've listed as separate main entries (so far): > >Quality Network Implementation Support Team (QNIST) >Quality Network Implementation Workshops >Quality Network Leadership Seminars >Quality Network Problem Solving Process >Quality Network Process Model > >Problem is, part of me finds these artificial as titles, even though they're >treated as such in the book. I'm afraid people will look up Quality Network, >which comes first and has a number of subentries, and never get down to the >bottom and see these extra main entries. One option is to go to another subheading level, as follows: Quality Network subhead1 subhead2 programs implementation support team leadership seminars problem solving process process model workshops subhead3 subhead4 etc. Jonathan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne (Blue Mountains Desktop Pty Ltd. - ACN 071 232 016) Blaxland NSW Australia jonathan@magna.com.au http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan Australian Wildlife in the Cheese Shop: "We had some, but the cat's eaten it." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:13:59 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: Footnotes In-Reply-To: <199511171747.JAA19864@biggulp.callamer.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Hazel Blumberg-McKee wrote: > I, too, thought that authors were supposed to keep the substantive > discussion in the text. Many of the endnotes I deal with have absolutely > *nothing* to do with the text I'm indexing. I keep looking at the > superscript number and then back at the endnote and wondering what I'm > missing. All I can guess is that Author X wants to show you that he or > she has read oh so many books on the topic--or on some peripheral topic. > Hazel, the book I'm working on right now not only has indexable footnotes, but many of the GLOSSARY TERMS are presented in bold type in footnotes for the first time! To me, this is a violation of every rule I can remember WRT both writing and indexing. It looks ridiculous to have definitions referenced as "page 13n" (n = footnote), doubly so because this is a textbook for students, NOT a learned tome for experts. If most interested readers skip the footnotes, you can imagine what students will do with them. Once more, I must ask, where are the editors? =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:14:16 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Isawriter@aol.com Subject: Re: Heavy vs. Light Indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Sonsie asked: >>But does anyone check each and every page number? If so, what's the most efficient way to do it?<< The classic way is to sort the entries in page number sequence and to go through your sorted file (on screen) side by side with the book. From my experience, you don't want to print off the index sorted by page numbers. It would go forever since you have the potential of 26 letter groups on each page. It is also best, if you use this technique, to combine page numbers in a single entry (as Cindex will allow). Instead of one raw entry: angora cats, 13, 15, 24 you would have three raw entries: angora cats, 13 angora cats, 15 angora cats, 24 I hope that makes sense. Anyhow, that is one way to do it. However, it will only work if the boredom factor which allowed the indexer to make a mistake in the first place doesn't creep back in while performing this very tedious task. Craig Brown ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:16:21 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Gerry McKiernan Subject: Announcing CyberStacks(sm) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Announcing CyberStacks(sm), A Demonstration Prototype Virtual Science and Technology Reference Collection While there have been noteworthy efforts to facilitate the efficient identification of relevant Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) information and data sources in the fields of science and technology, users continue to be confronted with the cumbersome task of effectively identifying, selecting, evaluating and using Internet Reference resources that best meet their information needs. To address this situation, I have created CyberStacks(sm) - a browsable classified and categorized selected collection with an appropriate level of specificity and description that I believe offers the value-added structure and organization which can facilitate the identification and use of selected Internet and WWW resources in these, and other, subject areas. The URL for CyberStacks(sm) is As a short-term goal, I plan to identify and incorporate selected resources that may be categorized within the Science (Q) outline of the Library of Congress classification scheme, the system that I have adopted for the CyberStacks(sm) service. I would greatly appreciate receiving the title, URL and a _brief_ description of other Reference resources that may be classified in this group, as well as similar information for resources that cover other science and technology disciplines. Within the CyberStacks(sm) main homepage, I have hypertexted a 'virtual paper' where I have critiqued other efforts and documented the theories, philosophies and observations which I believe support the organizational approach adopted by CyberStacks(sm). As I am greatly interested in refining the development of CyberStacks(sm) in this stage of its development, I ask that my colleagues critically review the overall scheme as well as any the other issues that this approach raises. I would also greatly appreciate comments on the working 'virtual paper' found throughout the base homepage. I believe that the CyberStacks(sm) database has the potential of serving many clientele within many organizations. To realize its potential, the service will require the cooperation and collaboration of a variety of subject specialists from these organizations, who have the expertise and knowledge of Internet resources in the broad and specific subject areas covered by CyberStacks(sm). I strongly encourage individuals and organizations to participate in the development of CyberStacks(sm) and describe the levels of participation from within its homepage. As CyberStacks(sm) is a prototype demonstration project, it would be premature to point to the service at this time. It is my hope that with the appropriate level of support, a fully functioning service can be established by July 1, 1996. Gerry McKiernan Coordinator, Science and Technology Section Reference and Instructional Services Iowa State University 152 Parks Ames IA 50011 gerrymck@iastate.edu "The Future is Now" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:16:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: To classify, or not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Joanne, as long as space isn't especially tight, I would add "see also specific programs" to your main entry, keep your 16 subs, and list all those separate programs as main entries, with their proper caps. The problem with your last example--describing them rather than listing them as actual titles of programs--is that they'll tend to get lost in the other subs, and people won't see them as official programs. It doesn't matter whether the titles *sound* artificial; those are the facts. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:17:02 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Other Internet newsgroups, e.g. the Well ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Are there any Internet discussion groups apart from Index-L? I have heard vaguely of the Well, which sounds like a writing-related group. Is there discussion of indexing on the Well, and is it readily accessible to all Internet subscribers? If so, how is it different in its approach and content to Index-L? Thanks in advance, Glenda Browne. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne (Blue Mountains Desktop Pty Ltd. - ACN 071 232 016) Blaxland NSW Australia jonathan@magna.com.au http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan Australian Wildlife in the Cheese Shop: "We had some, but the cat's eaten it." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:36:38 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: AnnN483417@aol.com Subject: Lurk no more ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Hello, all. I've been lurking on this list for a few weeks now, having nothing to contribute (yet!) but learning much. Having participated in many online lists/forums/etc where lurking was discouraged, I thought I would introduce myself briefly and then shut up again until I have something to say or, more likely, something to ask! (That reminds me, what is this official Indexing Course that people have mentioned?) After 10 years as a tech writer (software manuals; mostly mainframe network-management stuff) I left the corporate world, vowing to go and write no more. Then the bills piled up :-). For the last couple of months I have been working for (and learning from) another member of this list, indexing books about Internet publishing, Windows database management, and so on. I'm finding that free-lance indexing suits me well; it has all the things that appealed to me about technical writing (learning lots of cool stuff, making something for an actual reader, using my creativity) and none of the aspects I had come to loathe (reviews, reviewers, rewrites, going to an office every day, corporate politics, and years-long projects). I'm also finding that I have plenty to learn about indexing. So I'm lurking, but lurking harmlessly I assure you. :-) Ann Norcross Raleigh, NC