Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:05:53 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: HELM@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU Subject: word perfect index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I am creating a policy manual for my department. We are using Word Perfect. Word Perfect does have an indexing feature, but it picks up the pages of the document. We want to use a unique number for each policy, to be located in the Header. Is there a way to get Word Perfect to pick up the unique policy number; or is there another indexing program that I can use with Word Perfect to accomplish this task. Otherwise, I will have to enter each policy number manually next to the index terms. Example: the policy number is 28-1.1, and the index term for that policy is physical examination. Thank you! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:06:23 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: In>Sort for the Mac ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In response to an inquiry, Kensa Software sent me the following disappointing message: "In>Sort is no longer available for the Macintosh. The IBM version is still . . . ." Now, I ask you, a) Why would I care to know how much the IBM version costs, given that I obviously own a Mac (I inquired about the Mac version)? Does Kensa think I'm going to buy a computer to fit their software?!!! :-( b) *Why* is the Mac version no longer available? Was it ever available? Just how many "Mac version coming soon" ads did Kensa place in _Keywords_? :-( c) Does anyone know of *any* other worthwhile indexing software for the Mac? :-l Please excuse my evident frustration, but I feel like I've been teased. -- Carol Roberts Publications Services Cornell University cjr2@cornell.edu 607 255-9454 Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:07:54 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: indexing horror ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I saw this story on LIBREF-L. What a nightmare. Or cautionary tale. Smith, Neva J. njsmith@emx.cc.utexas.edu ----------------- From: z_naess_p@kari.uio.no Subject: "see other part of title" ----------------------Original message--------------------- For years I've been meaning to write to Congressional Quarterly Inc. and give vent to my frustration - which on busy days escalates to tome-throwing rage - with the index in their otherwise excellent reference work, "Washington Iormation Directory." What raises my dander is their practice of using "See other part of title" entries for organizations beginning with "academy," "advisory," "agency" etc. all the way through "United States," 28 such forbidden words in all, conveniently listed in an explanatory note at the beginning of the index. So, when someone asks me for the address of the Association of American Law Schools, I won't find it under Association, and not under American, but under Law. Next question is NOW, National Organization for Women, and I cleverly jump ahead to "Women," only to be turned back to "Organization" - darn, I should have checked the explanatory list at the front first. Then comes someone who wants to know about the National Security Archive, and I gingerly page forward to "Security Archive, National" - and find nothing. With an embarassed giggle I storm back to the A's, ready to pounce on "Archive, National Security" - but nothing there either! My authority is severly threatened now, and under a pretense of sudden distraction I page idly towards the N's, to sneak a peak at "National Security Archive" - and shucks, there it was all the time!!! I gather this execrable practice has something to do with economy of space, but I don't want to know how it works. All I know is I have no trouble at all working my way through the alphabets in the Carroll directories (Federal Executive Directory, etc.), the Congressional Directory, the Federal and Congressional Staff Directories, or the U.S. Government Manual, all of which are heavily populated with agencies, bureaus, and national this and thats, but have seen no reason to discriminate against them. I would welcome your views on this - if everybody disagrees with me, I've made a fool of myself and no harm is done. But if you agree that this is not a sensible way to make an index, let me hear from you - I will include all contributions in my letter to CQ, and that will sure give them something to think about! P.S. -perhaps this seems too trifling a matter for a professional librarian to expend energy on, but it can be a profound source of annoyance when managing a reference desk and multiple ringing phones. If any of you have ever run a marathon, you will know what an incredible drain of energy it is to have to negotiate an extra curb toward the end of the race. A friend of mine who runs marathons told me about that. ----------------- end of forwarded message------------ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 09:11:17 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: RHADDEN@USGSRESV.BITNET Subject: RE: word perfect index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Try calling the Word Perfect help desk at (801) 225-5000. Good luck! lee hadden usgs library ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 11:45:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Joan Stout Subject: Re: indexing horror In-Reply-To: <199303311314.AA29271@lamb.sas.com>; from "Neva J. Smith" at Mar 30, 93 3:07 pm ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > > I saw this story on LIBREF-L. What a nightmare. Or cautionary tale. > > Smith, Neva J. > njsmith@emx.cc.utexas.edu > ----------------- > > From: z_naess_p@kari.uio.no > Subject: "see other part of title" > > ----------------------Original message--------------------- > For years I've been meaning to write to Congressional Quarterly > Inc. and give vent to my frustration - which on busy days > escalates to tome-throwing rage - with the index in their > otherwise excellent reference work, "Washington Iormation > Directory." > > What raises my dander is their practice of using "See other part > of title" entries for organizations beginning with "academy," > "advisory," "agency" etc. all the way through "United States," > 28 such forbidden words in all, conveniently listed in an > explanatory note at the beginning of the index. So, when someone > asks me for the address of the Association of American Law > Schools, I won't find it under Association, and not under > American, but under Law. > [stuff deleted] > > I would welcome your views on this - if everybody disagrees with > me, I've made a fool of myself and no harm is done. But if you > agree that this is not a sensible way to make an index, let me > hear from you - I will include all contributions in my letter to > CQ, and that will sure give them something to think about! > I agree with you. This method of indexing does not make the index more useful - quite the contrary! I have indexed several books for CQ, working with two different editors. Both editors gave me almost 100% freedom to index the book in whatever way I wanted to index it. Perhaps CQ needs to provide some guidelines to their indexers. In any case, what you described is *not* "a sensible way to make an index," in my opinion. Joan Stout sasjcs@unx.sas.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 15:56:42 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was cweaver@CARSON.U.WASHINGTON.EDU From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: In>Sort for the Mac In-Reply-To: <9303311313.AA20477@carson.u.washington.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I bought the beta test version of In>Sort for the Mac and liked it a lot for simple, straight-forward indexes that didn't require machine coding or fancy formatting. But it does have some real limitations (like having to export to a word processor for printing). So for serious indexing I spent $700 for a used DOS machine and bought Cindex. We (husband, two teenagers, and me) continue to use the MAC for personal computing and reserve the DOS machine strictly for indexing. This has the very real advantage, according to my accountant, of letting me clearly write off the DOS computer and related expenses as a business expense WITHOUT having to keep a computer log. (Cindex also allows output in RTF format that is readable by MAC wordprocessing software.) So the investment in another computer and software was well worth it for serious indexing. Carolyn Weaver Seattle e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/643-1614 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:10:10 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Nancy C. Mulvany" Subject: CQ's WID Index ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Re: Congressional Quarterly's WID Subject Index I have no problem using CQ's subject index for the Washington Information Directory (WID), at least the 1989-1990 edition. There are two index in WID, a name index and a subject index. The name index contains names of people; the subject index is oriented toward organizations. The decision not to use certain leading terms (such as American, Association, Committee, National, etc.) as the entry element for the term was probably made in an effort toward "user friendliness". For those who have not seen WID, it's a who's who and what's what for Washington, D.C. If they used "American" as the entry element, it's hard to imagine how many column inches of entries there would be. There'd be the American Association of this, that and the other thing; line after line after line. What I think they have tried to do, and at least in my 1989-1990 edition explain rather clearly, is to pull the keyword in the name forward as the entry element. Say you're looking for the professional indexer's society... but you're not sure if it's called American Society of Indexers, or Society of American Indexers, or Association of American Indexers, or ... Using CQ's scheme, it wouldn't matter if you knew the exact name because all those examples above would be listed in the "I's". E.g.: Indexers, American Society of Indexers, Association of American Indexers, Society of I think their scheme makes sense. This is the "subject" index. The "throw away" words are pretty obvious. I would guess that more users are served by this scheme than if the entries were alpahbetized without inversion. Also, I doubt that this scheme is used to save space. It doesn't save any space. Lastly, in my 1989-1990 edition, the National Security Archive is just where I would first look. It is entered as: Security Archive, National Maybe things have changed in more recent editions. -nancy nmulvany@well.sf.ca.us