Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 07:48:04 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9701E" To: Julius Ariail ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:10:17 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli@AOL.COM Subject: ASI: Deadline for Indexer Services I have been prevailed upon to extend the deadline for the listing forms for the Indexer Services directory. Please pass the word along to those who might not have completed their form yet. New deadline for RECEIPT of Indexer Services listing forms in the ASI office is February 15. The address is: P.O. Box 48267, Seattle, WA 98148-0267. If you need any further information, please respond personally via e-mail to locatelli@aol.com. Fred Leise "Between the Lines" Indexing and Editorial Services chair, ASI Indexer Services committee ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:40:28 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Team indexing It take a lot of cooperation and time for authors and editors to work on a book. Usually, too, there is a lead editor or a lead author who is responsible for assigning individual tasks and compiling the results. I'm sure that if the publisher was willing to give several indexers as much time to index the book as they gave the (joint) editors to edit it, that it would be possible. Naturally, it would take a great deal of time and effort to synchronize indexing techniques. And just like the fact that not any two authors can work together, also not any two indexers can work together. The other fact of the matter is that there are MANY more single author books in the marketplace than there are multiple-author. (That's a fact I just made up. Can anyone verify that?) So its plausible, but improbable. Fred Leise "Between the Lines" Indexing and Editorial Services chair, ASi Indexer Services committee ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:08:32 CST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lonergan Lynn Subject: Re: team indexing Our periodical index is created by approximately 20 indexers, most located here but some are at distant locations. We _do_ have a controlled vocabulary and we have a unifying eye--mine--that reviews all of it for continuity, correctness of form, and completeness of inclusion. This ensures (theoretically :-) ) that all of the articles about a similar concept, regardless of terminology used by an author, end up with the same subject headings. IMHO team indexing of a book, while not easy or even desirable, could be done. Perhaps an editor of the index? Many (most?) multiple author books have an editor, don't they? Just my 2 cents.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lynn A. Lonergan Assistant Editor/Librarian Air University Library Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6424 334-953-2504; fax 334-953-1192 llonergan@max1.au.af.mil ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:34:52 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: WordenDex@AOL.COM Subject: Re: CINDEX 6.0 ALTER command Cynthia, As a novice indexer, even I have used ALTER successfully. Your example will do what you want it to do. Diane Worden Kalamazoo, Mich. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 05:35:52 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: team indexing At 07:08 AM 1/29/97 CST, Lynn wrote: > IMHO team indexing of a book, while not easy or even desirable, could >be done. Perhaps an editor of the index? Many (most?) multiple author >books have an editor, don't they? > Just my 2 cents.... >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I also copyedit textbooks. There are (at least) two types of books discussed here. I define a multiple-author book as a volume written in total by more than one author. There is also an edited work, with chapters written by different authors--called variously a contributed work or multiple-author. The latter are (with, in my experience, extraordinarly rare exception) a nightmare to copyedit. Generally the "editor" will be a leading scholar (or scholars) who care not a twit for consistency. Such works take much longer to copyedit. Indexing a contributed work that has not been copyedited for consistency is, in my experience, worse than a nightmare. I have dealt (probably not well) with a situation in which a rare cranciofacial anomalous disease was given *five* long, precise names--each by individuals of a stature to posit nomenclature. The cross references were cumbersome, but necessary. > Some things are possible. And you are absolutely correct---some of these are completely not desirable. Lack of consistency in an index is more than an elitist indexing ego trip--it's, in my analysis, a serious threat to the usefullness of an index. My druthers don't matter, but the ability of folks to use an index does. I have little doubt that the serious possibility for inconsistency, negates any potential advantage of multiple indexers. Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:14:22 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Craig Brown <104571.560@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Team indexing >>Their rebuttal is that consistency can be imposed on writers and editors, so why not indexers?<< The science fiction authors Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle write seamlessy integrated dialogue. It's not possible for a reader to determine whose voice is active. Someone asked them in an interview how they were able to work together so well. Their reply, tongue-in-cheek, was that they didn't understand how other people could work alone. However, in the world of fiction--an activity requiring much creativity--excellent co-authored books are the miniscule exception. I believe that is one counterargument. Craig Brown The Last Word ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:32:41 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: TAHUDOBA@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Team indexing To Dick, Fred and others: I have worked on a large, on-going indexing project for more than seven years, with up to 10 others at various times. It is possible to have multiple indexers working on a single project, but as was pointed out, and as we discovered (over and over), there are problems with consistency in indexing and editing of the final product. To head off some of these problems, we developed an indexing style manual and also take time to edit each other's work (when we have time). We also have the luxury (occasionally) of reediting and doing retrospective indexing for certain topics. Time, of course, is the element that determines how much of this can be done. But perhaps the topic here is not large, long-term projects, but rather single books or other one-shot projects. Here too, I work cooperatively with another indexer to produce a single index for our clients. We divide up the material to be indexed, look it over independently and then consult frequently on the phone while doing the indexing. We do need to build in extra time to combine our work and edit the final product (which means that one of us usually spends more time on the projects than the other person does). Our clients know that we will each invoice separately, but with the understanding that our combined hours/dollars on individual projects will not exceed a predetermined amount. Terri Hudoba Indexers Plus tahudoba@aol.com Dick Evans writes: << "If I can have multiple writers on a book and multiple editors on a book, why can't I have multiple indexers?" I have tried explaining the necessity of a single, consistent view of the organization of the material and the difficulties of melding pieces created by separate indexers who may have had different ideas of what was important. Their rebuttal is that consistency can be imposed on writers and editors, so why not indexers? >> << and Fred Leise writes: I'm sure that if the publisher was willing to give several indexers as much time to index the book as they gave the (joint) editors to edit it, that it would be possible. Naturally, it would take a great deal of time and effort to synchronize indexing techniques. And just like the fact that not any two authors can work together, also not any two indexers can work together. So its plausible, but improbable. >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:48:05 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: HyperIndex (was: Macrex v. Cindex) In-Reply-To: <199701290502.XAA26840@mixcom.mixcom.com> >I am lurking while taking the USDA course. Just wondered if anyone has >feedback on HyperIndex. There's a review of HyperIndex 5.0 in _Key Words_, vol. 4, nos. 3 & 4. But also check with the author, Andre De Tienne, about a new version: adetienn@indyvax.iupui.edu. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:02:00 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Larry Harrison Subject: Mac CINDEX Leslie wrote in part: >Now, I know you can get Cindex for the >Mac, so that argument is out, and you can also get an ergonomic keyboard for >the Mac. But, you still have to click a lot more. And for me, that leaves me >still loving my PC. I haven't tossed the Mac, and still use it for various >things. But if I had to choose..... I use Mac CINDEX now, and I have an ergonomic keyboard, too ;-D. When indexing, you hardly have to click at all. After you start up and open the desired index file using the mouse, there are keyboard equivalents for all the operations you need when doing heads-down entry, as well as editing. The hands can stay on the keyboard, as they should. The mouse is always there for operations which are more efficient using it (odd selections across words/lines, for example). Clearly, CINDEX for Mac was designed by folks who understand the indexer's work life right down to the ground. Larry Harrison (larryh@millcomm.com) Tel: 507/280-0049 Freelance book indexing Rochester, Minnesota What's book indexing? ---> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:06:53 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DStaub11@AOL.COM Subject: Re: MACREX problem / urgent In a message dated 97-01-28 17:58:47 EST, you write: > >Help! Can someone please tell me why MACREX seems to have grabbed my >printer driver and won't turn loose? > >The last file I printed normally was an index file - today, no other program >(except MACREX) will print. This has not happened before. I have a Compaq >Presario / Canon buble jet printer / Windows 3.1 / 486. > >Can someone out there please tell me what to do? No one seems to be >available at the MACREX telephone number and I can find nothing in any >manual that seems to help either. Has anyone else had this problem? > Dear Lillian--I'm sorry I can't help--nothing like that has every happened to me. It sounds like a memory glitch or something, not a regular thing Macrex does! I urge you to keep calling Gale--she sometimes goes away for a day but she always calls back as soon as she can--did you leave her a message? She's solved memory and other software problems for me before. Good luck! Do Mi Stauber ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:24:48 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: ROBJRICH@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Team indexing - - Dick et al - I am intrigued by this thread. I would appreciate more information on why your client raised the question. That is, what imagined advantage led to this idea? Initially, I thought that the question might have been raised by the client that I warmly (but not fondly) refer to as the Client from Hell. In their demonically Dilbert-ish way they likely would believe that if one indexer can complete a 600-page book in three days, then three indexers can complete it in one day! That is analogous to expecting three pregnant women to have one baby in only 90 days... But then, you did say "potential" client. I agree with Pam Rider's and Terri Hudoba's postings. I believe that the....hmmnnnn, I need a phrase here..... "editorial and administrative overhead" in coordinating a multiple-indexer project is much higher than your [potential] client might think. Controlled vocabularies do not spring free from Zeus' brow. A controlled vocabulary is difficult to establish and can be expensive to maintain. Establishing and maintaining any authority is a non-trivial undertaking. It certainly is not cost-effective for a one-shot single-volume text, and arguably is not cost-effective for a modest multi-volume text that is not expected to go into frequent, periodic revisions. But in any scenario somebody has to pull the disparate pieces together. Of course this presupposes that the client is not entirely production-driven, and is even moderately concerned about quality. If indexing quality and accuracy are not significant factors, then all of this concern about seamless consistency is beside the point. We all have heard the observation that a camel is a horse designed by a committee... My experience has been that most editors prefer (and appreciate) quality. But not at any cost. The definition of "any cost" is highly variable, and it is on this movable rock that our indexing vessels so often founder. Also, coordinating the efforts of even astonishingly harmonious indexers (a delightfully odd concept!) can require a good deal of communication during the writing of the individual index segments. Time must be allowed for editing for correctness and consistency after all the pieces are in. And, of course, time is money... I have worked on a multi-volume scientific encyclopedia, and still have a reverent respect for the skill, tenacity and energy of the indexer who coordinated the project. This project used fifteen-or-so indexers of different backgrounds, skills, and temperments, all working to a relatively tight time frame (it got a lot tighter toward the end). Projects like this seem to accelerate as they get nearer to the deadline, and finish in a high-pitched, rising scream. A bit like crossing the event horizon and falling into a black hole... This is an interesting thread. Your responses would be most welcome. Bob Richardson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:10:00 GMT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lillian Ashworth Subject: Re: MACREX printer problem solved Hello all- Many thanks to those who responded to my plea for help. For those who might find themselves in the same predicament (MACREX grabbed my printer driver and wouldn't turn let any other program use the printer), the solution lay in reinstalling the printer driver itself (first removing the old driver). Again, thx to all who gave suggestions. Lillian Ashworth ashworth@pullman.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:38:49 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: Team indexing - - You must build in time, and pay, for administration and for editing the final index. Having one person in charge, with adequate time for review and consolidation, helps give the index at least the appearance of coherence. I am reminded of the time a client said to me, "The person who did Chapter 5 should be shot." Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:06:11 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cheryl Dietsch Subject: Re: Team indexing Richard Evans wrote: > > A potential client has raised this question: > > "If I can have multiple writers on a book and multiple editors on a book, > why can't I have multiple indexers?" > > I have tried explaining the necessity of a single, consistent view of the > organization of the material and the difficulties of melding pieces created > by separate indexers who may have had different ideas of what was important. > Their rebuttal is that consistency can be imposed on writers and editors, so > why not indexers? > > Your thoughts on the matter? > I've worked on more books than I care to count where more than one indexer coded entries for the book. In nearly all cases the edit was a nightmare because no two indexers are going to code completely consistently no matter how hard we try. Sure, there are a few indexers that I feel comfortable sharing a book with because our coding styles are very similar, but even in those instances we each have to be very careful and aware of how the other one works. I think imposing consistency rules on authors and editors is different than trying to impose consistency on indexers. Two or more indexers for a book can come up with general guidelines for how they will code certain recurring themes in a book (i.e. commands, program listings, etc.), but their individual styles will still come through and not necessarily be consistent with each other. In the case of multi-author books, each chapter is still done by one author (usually), so the chapters remain internally consistent. The index is one document, so for it to be written by more than one indexer makes it extremely difficult to keep the index internally consistent. I can understand that time constraints will sometimes make it necessary to have multiple indexers work on one book, but in order to produce a more consistent, higher-quality index, it's much better to have only one indexer work on the book. Cheryl Dietsch Macmillan Publishing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:47:42 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: MACREX printer problem solved At 07:10 PM 1/29/97 GMT, Lillian Ashworth wrote: >For those who might find themselves in the same predicament (MACREX grabbed >my printer driver and wouldn't turn let any other program use the printer), >the solution lay in reinstalling the printer driver itself (first removing >the old driver). Lillian, this was what I was going to suggest...before I saw that you had solved the problem. For what it's worth, I'd be hesitant to blame Macrex specifically for this problem. It crops up occasionally with any executable program that can control a printer. Usually all you have to do is do a cold boot and start over, clearing all the buffers and settings and so on, but when that doesn't work, reinstalling the driver almost always does. =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:56:35 UT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Margaret Ulber Subject: Re: MACREX problem / urgent ---------- From: Indexer's Discussion Group on behalf of DStaub11@AOL.COM Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 12:06 PM To: Multiple recipients of list INDEX-L Subject: Re: MACREX problem / urgent In a message dated 97-01-28 17:58:47 EST, you write: > >Help! Can someone please tell me why MACREX seems to have grabbed my >printer driver and won't turn loose? > >The last file I printed normally was an index file - today, no other program >(except MACREX) will print. This has not happened before. I have a Compaq >Presario / Canon buble jet printer / Windows 3.1 / 486. > >Can someone out there please tell me what to do? No one seems to be >available at the MACREX telephone number and I can find nothing in any >manual that seems to help either. Has anyone else had this problem? > Dear Lillian--I'm sorry I can't help--nothing like that has every happened to me. It sounds like a memory glitch or something, not a regular thing Macrex does! I urge you to keep calling Gale--she sometimes goes away for a day but she always calls back as soon as she can--did you leave her a message? She's solved memory and other software problems for me before. Good luck! Do Mi Stauber What a nasty problem! Hope it's been solved by the time you read this. I also use a Cannon Bubble Jet with Macrex, but with Windows95. Never had anything like this happen. I'm wondering if you have checked what your system has designated as the default output device. When I installed my modem, all of a sudden every output defaulted to the modem instead of my printer. If I were in your situation and couldn't find the problem by poking around in the system (which is where I'd guess it is), I would just reinstall my printer software. I did that once when the printer was doing some really weird things....fixed it completely. Good luck, Meg Ulber M_Ulber@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:03:12 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Team indexing Hi, all! I'm enjoying this thread, and I especially agree with Cheryl Dietsch, who said: >> ... The index is one document, so, for it to be written by more than one indexer makes it extremely difficult to keep the index internally consistent. I can understand that time constraints will sometimes make it necessary to have multiple indexers work on one book, but in order to produce a more consistent, higher-quality index, it's much better to have only one indexer work on the book.>> BTW, I also loved Bob Richardson's old analogy about the theory that three women could deliver a baby in less time than it would take one woman! :-) I'm now working with my fourth Intern from the Technical Communications department at Metro State Colleege of Denver. My Interns do work with me on indexing projects and, of course, it does take each of us more time than we would spend if we were working alone. Since most of the indexing projects I do have very tight deadlines, it's a rare luxury to work on an index that allows sufficient time for us to use an interative process. The "iterative process" we use entails the following steps: (1) I index the first chapter or two and review it with the Intern. (2) The Intern, who must try to "get inside my head and make the same choices *I* would make (not an easy feat!), then marks up the page proofs for the next chapter. (3) We review the markups together, and I give the Intern my feedback. (4) The Intern keys in the entries in a separate file (not the same file I'm working on). (5) We print the Intern's file, make whatever edits are necessary, and ensure consistency in terminology between the two index files. (6) I merge the Intern's file with mine and we do another edit to ensure consistency. (7) The process begins again, with the Intern marking up the next chapter. Throughout this process, I give the Intern a lot of one-on-one mentoring, which (I hope!) helps the Intern "get inside my head." As you might suspect, this is a very time-consuming process. Fortunately, I've had a lot of success with it. A recent success story: I indexed two or three issues of a periodical, and an Intern (who had some experience under her belt) used my index as a guide as she indexed all of the other issues. The end result couldn't have been better. Even *I* had a hard time determining which entries I had created and which entries my Intern had created! You can imagine how pleased I was when the client sent me an e-mail message saying the index was wonderful. :-) Fortunately, on the periodical project, we had the luxury of time on our side. The Intern and I met at various intervals to review her progress, to resolve terminology issues, and to make whatever edits were necessary. The moral of the story: Team indexing can be a successful endeavor; however, it does take a lot of effort and considerably more time to make it a success. Happy indexing .... Lori ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:24:56 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: More botanical names Speedy replies to this question most appreciated. Pages 71-72 are about designing a garden. Page 71 is text, page 72 is a diagram and a list of common/botanical names. Page 71 uses common names. The obvious entry for African daisy is: African daisy 71-72 ...because it appears on both pages. What is the appropriate reference for the botanical name that only appears on page 72? Dick Richard (Dick) Evans Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:48:17 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: More botanical names I have a habit--it *may* be wrong. I would never enter African daisy without its scientific name. A Cindex user, I create an abbreviation for daisy, African (scientific name in italics) Scientific name (African daisy) and enter both each entry I also would have an entry African daisy. See Daisy, African (blah, blah). My reasoning is that an African daisy is an African daisy and deserves an entry regardless of nomenclature. At 09:24 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >Speedy replies to this question most appreciated. > >Pages 71-72 are about designing a garden. Page 71 is text, page 72 is a >diagram and a list of common/botanical names. Page 71 uses common names. > >The obvious entry for African daisy is: > >African daisy 71-72 > >...because it appears on both pages. > >What is the appropriate reference for the botanical name that only appears >on page 72? > >Dick > > > >Richard (Dick) Evans >Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. > > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:06:01 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: indexer@INETCOM.NET Subject: Re: Answering machine tapes A little addendum to my post about answering machine tapes: >Here's a little tip if you use an answering machine. {Like who doesn't}. I'd been >getting these weird messages for months on my answering machine. It would be the >standard operator's voice "please hang up and dial again..." followed by the >ding-ding-ding you get when you leave your phone off the hook. .... >.. turned out to be a dirty microcassette tape... (as in dirt, not an obscene message) The warning sign of this problem is if you get people say "wow that's a long beep!" The normal 2-3 second beep the caller hears after the "leave your message after the beep" becomes a 10-30 second beep. There is a lot of evidence that most people don't report such weird occurrences cause they figure someone else has or will. On more than a few occasions a group of neighbors has stood around watching a house burn to the ground and wondering what's taking the fire department so long, only to find everyone assumed someone else would report it! Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 http://www2.inet.net/~indexer/kjm.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:05:31 -0600 Reply-To: becohen@prairienet.org Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Barbara E. Cohen" Subject: Re: More botanical names Dick, When I have indexed gardening books, I have been instructed to (1) treat all page numbers the same, whether diagrams, boxed information of running text), (2) set each element in a different typeface (I hate this, as I get so confused!), and (3) write out "chart" "box" "diagram" after those elements.... in other words, there are many ways to deal with this problem, and the answer lies in how you are dealing with all of the locators. Not to change the subjec too abruptly..... but are you and any other gardening/environmental science indexers interested in forming a special interest group within ASI? (We could, for starters, discuss some of these indexing problemd and type up a list of suggested/ preferred ways to work)... Perhaps we could get together in Winston- Salem and coordinate our selves.... (The History/Archaeology SIG just published a list of memberd and a brochure, and I would like to suggest gardening as another good topic for a SIG). Barbara -- Barbara E. Cohen Indexing & Editorial Services Champaign, IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:10:58 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Helen Schinske Subject: Multiple indexers and LC subject headings In a message dated 97-01-30 00:12:10 EST, Bob Richardson wrote: >Controlled vocabularies do not spring free from Zeus' brow. A controlled vocabulary is >difficult to establish and can be expensive to maintain. Establishing and maintaining >any authority is a non-trivial undertaking. It certainly is not cost-effective for a one-shot >single-volume text, and arguably is not cost-effective for a modest multi-volume text >that is not expected to go into frequent, periodic revisions. But in any scenario >somebody has to pull the disparate pieces together. Precisely -- and this is probably one of the reasons that so many magazine indexes (was it Cynthia Bertelsen who quoted an article that said at least 20?) use Library of Congress Subject Headings -- "because they're there." I would be interested to know if there is any other controlled vocabulary *already in existence* that would serve the purpose of a general-interest magazine index better. Also, I wonder if the indexers of these magazines ever "tweak" the subject headings (either in format or content) to work a little better in the context of an index. Helen Schinske HSchinske@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:40:06 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bert Boyce Subject: Re: Multiple indexers and LC subject headings Helen Schinske wrote: >I would be interested to know if there is any other controlled vocabulary >*already in existence* that would serve the purpose of a general-interest >magazine index better. Also, I wonder if the indexers of these magazines >ever "tweak" the subject headings (either in format or content) to work a >little better in the context of an index. Sears Subject Headings, which is still in use in many smaller libraries, and available from H.W. Wilson and Company, might well be a logical choice. BRB Bert R. Boyce, Professor & Dean School of Library & Information Science Louisiana State University 267 Coates Hall Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (504)388-3158 FAX: (504)388-4581 LSBOYC@LSUVM.sncc.lsu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:36:01 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Cindex, flipping caps Here's the background: 1. Cindex has a feature that flips (inverts) entries. If you have: printing documents you can press the two-key combination of "ALT plus" and flip it to: documents printing. 2. If you are hard-coding initial caps, Cindex flips the caps: Printing documents becomes: Documents printing. 3. A problem arises when you are not hard coding initial caps and have a lot of case-sensitive entries where you must retain the original capitalization. This happens a lot in computer books. Thus: JCL (Job Control Language) syntax becomes: Syntax jCL (Job Control Language) It has also come up in the recent botanical index with entries like: Frikart's aster marine-climate garden 4. The current workaround is to use an alternate key combination of "ALT minus." 5. There is an undocumented feature that flips entries using the numeric plus key, but its only behavior is to flip the caps. I have been lobbying (unsuccessfully) for years for Cindex to add a setup parameter that would allow individual users to set the default behavior for the numeric plus key: either "flip caps" or "maintain caps." My reasoning is that a single large key is easier to use than two small, widely-spaced keys. I am in the habit of using the large key, which works fine until I hit a case sensitive entry, then I have to switch to the awkward "ALT minus" combination. Since I *never* hard code initial caps and *very often* deal with case-sensitive entries, I would like to set the numeric plus key to maintain caps when flipping. My question to the group is: Would you find it beneficial to be able to customize the way the numeric plus key works? (Assume that this is in addition to and not insted of any current behavior.) Dick Richard (Dick) Evans Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:21:56 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cynthia Bertelsen Subject: Re: Multiple indexers and LC subject headings Sears is a possibility, but it is more limited in its range than is LCSH. In this day and age, with all of the change in electronic terminology, etc., it seems to me at least that LCSH might be a better all-around choice, since LCSH do get updated (in "Weekly Lists" and online updates) more often than do the Sears headings (which may be updated annually). Sears has the advantage of providing more specific terminoology than LCSH in many cases, but I would think the smaller subject range would make Sears less than ideal on its own. Perhaps a combination of the two systems would work best for the time being, taking what is good from each? According to Lois Mai Chan and Theodora Hodges in Technical Services Today and Tomorrow, by Michael Gorman and associates (Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1990), the indexers do "tweak" the headings ("...(some with augmentation or modification)"). At 12:40 PM 1/30/97 +0000, Bert Boyce wrote: >Helen Schinske wrote: >>I would be interested to know if there is any other controlled vocabulary >>*already in existence* that would serve the purpose of a general-interest >>magazine index better. Also, I wonder if the indexers of these magazines >>ever "tweak" the subject headings (either in format or content) to work a >>little better in the context of an index. > > Sears Subject Headings, which is still in use in many smaller >libraries, and available from H.W. Wilson and Company, might well be a >logical choice. > BRB >Bert R. Boyce, Professor & Dean >School of Library & Information Science >Louisiana State University >267 Coates Hall >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > (504)388-3158 >FAX: (504)388-4581 >LSBOYC@LSUVM.sncc.lsu.edu > > ***************************************** Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer cbertel@usit.net http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:12:52 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: More botanical names At 09:24 AM 1/30/97 -0500, Richard Evans wrote: >What is the appropriate reference for the botanical name that only appears >on page 72? If it's likely that the common name will reappear at intervals (or that mostly common names will be used throughout this book), I'd add a "see" reference: ^Osteospermum^ spp. ^See^ African Daisy (Macrex users will recognized the usage of carets to indicate italics.) Seems to me the important thing is to gather all the references to African Daisy (and other common names) in one place. If the preponderance of usage is the botanical name, then that should be the main gathering place. Otherwise, it's the reverse. I wouldn't be overly concerned with the fact that on one page the botanical name is used and thus "should" require a specific page reference. But as usual, if this seems to be an ongoing issue I'd call the editor and explain the problem and ask if he/she has any preference or guidance. Also, you might find out if there is to be a glossary that "translates" common names to botanicals. If so, perhaps the intent is that the index should reference only botanicals...in which case, the above "See^ reference should be reversed: African Daisy. See ^Arctotis; Dimorphotheca; Osteospermum^ =Sonsie= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:11:23 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cynthia Bertelsen Subject: Re: SIGs Is there a medical or other science-related SIG in ASI? Thanks. At 11:05 AM 1/30/97 -0600, Barbara E. Cohen wrote: >Not to change the subjec too abruptly..... but are you and any other >gardening/environmental science indexers interested in forming a >special interest group within ASI? (We could, for starters, discuss >some of these indexing problemd and type up a list of suggested/ >preferred ways to work)... Perhaps we could get together in Winston- >Salem and coordinate our selves.... (The History/Archaeology SIG >just published a list of memberd and a brochure, and I would like to >suggest gardening as another good topic for a SIG). > >Barbara > > > >-- >Barbara E. Cohen >Indexing & Editorial Services >Champaign, IL > > ***************************************** Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer cbertel@usit.net http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:02:57 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Mary S Stephenson Subject: Re: Multiple indexers and LC subject headings In-Reply-To: <199701301821.NAA20032@smtest.usit.net> One point to keep in mind when indexing using LCSH (or other similar subject heading schemes such as MESH) is the problems that the subdivisions may cause if the index will be machine-searchable -- that is on a database. For example the LCSH heading: ENGLISH LANGUAGE -- MIDDLE ENGLISH, 1100-1500 -- GLOSSARIES, VOCABULARIES, ETC. The precoordinate nature of such headings expressed via the "dashes" make them very helpful in a manual situation by "pulling together" similar materials, but can be confusing to end-users when they try to deal with them online. Some database software/configurations treat the separate subheadings as different parts of a single field -- so that some special command has to be used to search for them together in a single subject heading. For example on DIALOG the (L) proximity operator is used, while on EPIC the "N" proximity operator or a subject phrase search can be used. In other databases (such as EUREKA) the dashes are included, but you have to be careful about how many hyphens are used and/or the spacing before and after the dashes. Some OPACs in libraries ignore the dashes completely when the database is searched. As well, you must consider who will be doing the indexing. LCSH can be quite "challenging" to use in a consistent and predictable manner -- particularly since they themselves lack a great deal in the areas of consistency and predictability. This can become even more problematic if you decide to allow "tweaking" of some of the headings. The question is who will do this, when will they do it, and how do they communicate their decisions to the other indexers about this new version of the heading(s). What do you do if two different indexers do mutually exclusive "tweaking" of the same heading? The overall idea is to focus not just on the headings, but in the total system in which they will be used. Hope this helps. Susie Stephenson UBC/SLAIS Vancouver mss@unixg.ubc.ca On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Cynthia Bertelsen wrote: > Sears is a possibility, but it is more limited in its range than is LCSH. In > this day and age, with all of the change in electronic terminology, etc., it > seems to me at least that LCSH might be a better all-around choice, since > LCSH do get updated (in "Weekly Lists" and online updates) more often than > do the Sears headings (which may be updated annually). Sears has the > advantage of providing more specific terminoology than LCSH in many cases, > but I would think the smaller subject range would make Sears less than ideal > on its own. Perhaps a combination of the two systems would work best for > the time being, taking what is good from each? > > According to Lois Mai Chan and Theodora Hodges in Technical Services Today > and Tomorrow, by Michael Gorman and associates (Libraries Unlimited, Inc., > 1990), the indexers do "tweak" the headings ("...(some with augmentation or > modification)"). > > At 12:40 PM 1/30/97 +0000, Bert Boyce wrote: > >Helen Schinske wrote: > >>I would be interested to know if there is any other controlled vocabulary > >>*already in existence* that would serve the purpose of a general-interest > >>magazine index better. Also, I wonder if the indexers of these magazines > >>ever "tweak" the subject headings (either in format or content) to work a > >>little better in the context of an index. > > > > Sears Subject Headings, which is still in use in many smaller > >libraries, and available from H.W. Wilson and Company, might well be a > >logical choice. > > BRB > >Bert R. Boyce, Professor & Dean > >School of Library & Information Science > >Louisiana State University > >267 Coates Hall > >Baton Rouge, LA 70803 > > (504)388-3158 > >FAX: (504)388-4581 > >LSBOYC@LSUVM.sncc.lsu.edu > > > > > > ***************************************** > > Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer > cbertel@usit.net > http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html > > ***************************************** > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:21:32 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: More botanical names Dick Evans asked: >Pages 71-72 are about designing a garden. Page 71 is text, page 72 is a >diagram and a list of common/botanical names. Page 71 uses common names. > >The obvious entry for African daisy is: > >African daisy 71-72 > >...because it appears on both pages. > >What is the appropriate reference for the botanical name that only appears >on page 72? You must have all references to a plant together. The best place is under the botanical name, since so many plants have more than one common name. All common names can them be cross-referenced to the plant name. If you have room, it's good to put the common name(s) in parentheses after the botanical name. Thus: (^....^ indicates italics): ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. (African daisy), 71, 72 (I wouldn't use 71-72 unless the text discussion is a continuous one about this particular plant that goes over onto page 72.) Also: African daisy. ^See^ ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. If it's a relatively simple book with few common names given, you could double post (putting the botanical name in parentheses after the common name if you really want to be elegant and have lots of room), especially if there are few entries. I like double posting because it's easier on the reader, but I've had a lot of trouble getting enough space to do it. Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:21:37 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: botanical names (long) I would like to comment on these examples given recently: in run-on style: >Thymus, 142, 156, 157; T. druceri, 156; T. vulgaris, 142 >In Rodale's Illustrated Encycopledia of Herbs, the arrangement is indented >and the names of the genera, if there is more than one species, are given as >(following Wellisch's convention): >Ephedra major, 184 >Ephedra nevadenis, 184 >Ephedra sinica, 184 >Ephedra spp. (ssp. should be in roman, not italics), 281 I have a real problem with the second example, one which in all the Ortho gardening books I've worked on we have never solved to my satisfaction. ^Ephedra^ spp. should be the main entry, since all the other ^Ephedra^ entries are specific species. Thus, ideally: ^Ephedra^ spp., 281 ^E. major^, 184 ^E. nevadenis^, 184 ^E. sinica^, 184 Now, aside from the fact that all the subentries refer to the same page--and I could avoid the problem entirely by putting just: ^Ephedra^ spp., 184, 281 I have tried to work out a way to put OTHER subentries in with these in alphabetical order, without losing coherence. Ortho tried something strange in the ORTHO PROBLEM SOLVER first edition, which then was retained in all three subsequent editions (what fun forcing alphabetization!)--the species were listed first, then the general subentries. This led to (these are made-up entries): ^Ephedra^ spp., 281 ^E. major^, 184 ^E. nevadenis^, 184 ^E. sinica^, 184 buying, 28 diseases of, 282 in medicinal herb garden, 333 transplanting, 100 It keeps all the species names together, but breaks major indexing rules. (Ortho submitted the third edition for the Wilson Award--with other alphabetical changes I didn't even know about until I worked on the fourth edition--and it was probably rejected early on because of this.) Later editors preferred: ^Ephedra^ spp., 281 buying, 28 diseases of, 282 ^major^, 184 in medicinal herb garden, 333 ^nevadenis^, 184 ^sinica^, 184 transplanting, 100 It isn't perfect (according to Wellisch), but it's the most logical and usable method so far. If anyone has a better idea, I would like to see it. Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:57:14 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Joel S. Berson" Subject: Re: MACREX problem / urgent This thought is probably after the fact, if you've already reinstalled the printer driver -- but I sometimes find that an application hasn't left the "default" printer as what I want it to be. (Modem-fax software seems to be a common culprit.) In Windows 3.1, go into Printer Manager/Options/Printer Setup, see what the default is, and if necessary change it. Margaret Ulber wrote: > > ---------- > From: Indexer's Discussion Group on behalf of DStaub11@AOL.COM > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 12:06 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list INDEX-L > Subject: Re: MACREX problem / urgent > > In a message dated 97-01-28 17:58:47 EST, you write: > > > > >Help! Can someone please tell me why MACREX seems to have grabbed my > >printer driver and won't turn loose? > > > >The last file I printed normally was an index file - today, no other program > >(except MACREX) will print. This has not happened before. I have a Compaq > >Presario / Canon buble jet printer / Windows 3.1 / 486. > > > >Can someone out there please tell me what to do? No one seems to be > >available at the MACREX telephone number and I can find nothing in any > >manual that seems to help either. Has anyone else had this problem? > > > Dear Lillian--I'm sorry I can't help--nothing like that has every happened to > me. It sounds like a memory glitch or something, not a regular thing Macrex > does! I urge you to keep calling Gale--she sometimes goes away for a day but > she always calls back as soon as she can--did you leave her a message? She's > solved memory and other software problems for me before. Good luck! Do Mi > Stauber > > What a nasty problem! Hope it's been solved by the time you read this. I > also use a Cannon Bubble Jet with Macrex, but with Windows95. Never had > anything like this happen. I'm wondering if you have checked what your system > has designated as the default output device. When I installed my modem, all > of a sudden every output defaulted to the modem instead of my printer. If I > were in your situation and couldn't find the problem by poking around in the > system (which is where I'd guess it is), I would just reinstall my printer > software. I did that once when the printer was doing some really weird > things....fixed it completely. > > Good luck, > Meg Ulber > M_Ulber@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:03:50 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: WordenDex@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Cindex, flipping caps Yes, customizing multiple keys that a closer together is a good idea. Diane Worden Kalamazoo, Mich. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:37:16 -0600 Reply-To: becohen@prairienet.org Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Barbara E. Cohen" Subject: Re: SIGs SIGs are a new thing for ASI. To my knowledge, we only have a History/Archaeology one, which was started last summer in Chicago. If you are interested in starting a SIG (which we view as a group marketing strategy more than anything else at the moment), all you have to do is declare yourself in charge of one and get other people interested too. There are many topics that would be good. So far the History/Archaeology SIG has designed a brochure and a members directory to distribute, and some of us attended an OAH (Org. of American Historians) meeting last summer. We ate lunch together at the Denver ASI conference and we are planning a get- together for Saturday evening in Winston-Salem. ANy ASI member is welcome to start or join a SIG. ASI can never provide the kind of topical publicity for ASI members that we can provide for ourselves if we are willing to work together. Margie is having a roundtable on Friday in W-S on SIGs, so attend that if you need assistance in starting yours. (Personally, I see this as the next logical step for ASI members, now that our local chapters are so active. We need to coordinate with other people working in our subject areas, and that is what we think the History/Archaeology SIG will do for its members--better networking with qualified people who are working for many of the same clients.) Barbara -- Barbara E. Cohen Indexing & Editorial Services Champaign, IL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:02:08 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cynthia Bertelsen Subject: Re: SIG for Science and Medicine I am interested in starting a SIG for science and medical indexers. My reasons for this are to exchange/share information about indexing scientific materials, since there isn't that all much about it out there (other than the Society of Indexers Occasional Paper on the subject of biology and medicine) and to also possibly form a marketing group as Barbara Cohen suggested. If anyone has an interest in this, maybe we can first exchange email messages offlist, get a core mailing list together, and then have some meetings in Winston-Salem (lunch, dinner, etc.) to get acquainted and talk strategy. Anyone who is not going to Winston-Salem is certainly invited to participate by email, since email is almost as good as a personal conversation. So...if anyone out there would like to do this, please send your ideas to me offlist and I will be happy to act as a contact until things get more structured. I will forward all messages to those interested. ***************************************** Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer cbertel@usit.net http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:26:18 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Willa MacAllen Organization: MacAllen's Information Service Subject: Proposed Proofreading List Greetings: I just sent a general email to all those on this list who replied that they were interested in helping out with the proposed proofreading list. Approximately 12 or 13 participants of index-l & ce-l responded to my query. Please reply to me offline if you did not get my email. Thanks to everyone for your positive response to this suggestion. Starting a nst listserv will be a learning experience for all of us, but exciting to watch it get off the ground! Thanks. Willa MacAllen macallen@tiac.net Librarian/Techncial writer Boston ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 06:10:15 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: SIG for Science and Medicine I am interested, even though Winston-Salem is not on my agenda. TIA At 08:02 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >I am interested in starting a SIG for science and medical indexers. My >reasons for this are to exchange/share information about indexing scientific >materials, since there isn't that all much about it out there (other than >the Society of Indexers Occasional Paper on the subject of biology and >medicine) and to also possibly form a marketing group as Barbara Cohen >suggested. If anyone has an interest in this, maybe we can first exchange >email messages offlist, get a core mailing list together, and then have some >meetings in Winston-Salem (lunch, dinner, etc.) to get acquainted and talk >strategy. Anyone who is not going to Winston-Salem is certainly invited to >participate by email, since email is almost as good as a personal conversation. > >So...if anyone out there would like to do this, please send your ideas to me >offlist and I will be happy to act as a contact until things get more >structured. I will forward all messages to those interested. > >***************************************** > >Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer >cbertel@usit.net >http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html > >***************************************** > > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:45:43 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Indexing product names Scenario: A computer book titled "PandaSoft Office Suite" includes references to numerous components such as PandaSoft Calendar, PandaSoft Word, PandaSoft Calc, etc. References in text always use the company name in conjunction with the product. Should the product names be indexed under the company name? Given that the entire book is about PandaSoft products, it seems unnecessary to me. Dick Richard (Dick) Evans Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:13:52 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: indexer@INETCOM.NET Subject: Re: Indexing product names Dick Evans wrote: >Scenario: A computer book titled "PandaSoft Office Suite" includes >references to numerous components such as PandaSoft Calendar, PandaSoft >Word, PandaSoft Calc, etc. > >References in text always use the company name in conjunction with the >product. Should the product names be indexed under the company name? > >Given that the entire book is about PandaSoft products, it seems unnecessary >to me. > Great question Dick. I've had this problem a lot since I index a lot of computer-oriented works. I handle it by putting the following in the "index notes": "Software titles are indexed by title rather than company name. Thus look up "Windows 95, not "Microsoft Windows 95"" Now in the case of entries that may have many references, like Windows 95, I always include a "see" from the Company's name. If the text discussion centers on the various software titles of a certain company, I'll include the company name as a main heading and also have the individual titles at their respective places as main headings. In the books I do, which are typically business-oriented things like data warehouse or Lotus Notes applications, the software titles are typically mentioned in groups of 3-5 as an almost passing mention and I don't feel it's justified to include references under the company's name. Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 http://www2.inet.net/~indexer/kjm.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:35:16 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Gripne, Stephanie L" Subject: seeking professional indexing To Whom it May Concern: The Journal of Wildlife Management, quarterly professional scientific publication, has previously done all of their indexing in-house. We are interested in exploring other options. Our publication on average is a 2 column 800-1000 pages annually. Please send us any information regarding people, prices, and time. Sincerely, Stephanie Lynn Gripne The Journal of Wildlife Management The University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point Stevens Point WI 54481 715 346-3842 sgrip196@uwsp.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:37:05 -0600 Reply-To: becohen@prairienet.org Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Barbara E. Cohen" Subject: Re: Indexing product names Dick, Kevin's suggestion about a headnote is a good one, but knowing that most people don't check the headnote first (ever?), I would probably double-post all such (just to be on the safe side, as it were). I have indexed the newsletters for NCSA in which all NCSA software does start with NCSA --, making the N entries rather long. All programs are cross-references from the program name (minus "NCSA" prefix) to the entries under NCSA. This was a directive from the client. Maybe you need to ask the in-house editor what the company's preference is, in this case. Barbara -- Barbara E. Cohen Indexing & Editorial Services Champaign, IL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:14:31 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: WordenDex@AOL.COM Subject: Re: More botanical names Recently Elinor suggested using both ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. (African daisy) and African daisy. ^See^ ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. If this were the case, wouldn't a VERIFY command in CINDEX indicate a missing cross-reference? It would look for ^Di...^ spp. and not find it; only finding ^Di...^ spp. (African daisy) instead. Is this easy to live with by just ignoring CINDEX's "Missing" label or is there another way around this automated response? Diane Worden Kalamazoo, Mich. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:33:50 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: Indexing product names I like the fix, but one of my clients refuses to accept notes to an index. Therefore, I am left with the option to have an atypical cross reference: Microsost Windows 95. See individual software titles. blah, blah, blah. . . A. I've had this problem a lot since I index a lot of >computer-oriented works. I handle it by putting the following in the "index >notes": > >"Software titles are indexed by title rather than company name. Thus look >up "Windows 95, not "Microsoft Windows 95"" > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:48:39 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: More botanical names At 01:14 PM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >Recently Elinor suggested using both > ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. (African daisy) >and > African daisy. ^See^ ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. > >If this were the case, wouldn't a VERIFY command in CINDEX indicate a missing >cross-reference? Yup, it sure does. Dick Richard (Dick) Evans Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:24:52 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "James G. Gilley" Subject: Macrex program for sale I need to sell my Macrex program. Anyone interested can reply to me. Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:47:46 +0000 Reply-To: curr@mnsinc.com Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Cliff Urr Organization: Galaxy Scientific Corp. Subject: Who Needs Indexes? (A Continuation...) This is M. Hart's response to my reply to his post about how indexes are not needed e-texts. It includes most of what he said, followed by my reply. Enjoy ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:44:46 -0800 Reply-to: curr@news2.mnsinc.com From: "Cliff Urr" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Brute-Force ASCII Searching (Was: Re: An observation) Michael S. Hart said: > Finding "autos" when you search for "cars" is what the thesaurus > function is for. You can either use search programs that have a > thesaurus built in or you can cut and paste from your own choice > of thesaurii. You seem to have ignored what I said what indexers, at least back of the book indexers: they use the language supplied in the document, and add facets which may or may not appear in that document. But people who index specific documents fashion their listings and its facets in ways that take maximize access to the document they are indexing, thereby adding access value in ways thesauri alone cannot. However, requiring a searcher to master use of a thesaurus is only a half-solution. This is true even in cases when other types of "knowledge objects," so to speak, such as databases, say Medline's, is being indexed. When Medline includes thesaurus headings as controlled index terms for an article, while availing the end-user of a thesaurus (MESH in this case) to structure their search, they are making it much easier for the user to make intelligent decisions about which article to proceed to when their hit list appears. They are especially helping users who may not know enough about an issue to properly search for it - the two tools of thesaurus + controlled index headings makes the searching much more effective and efficient for users. Ditch even one of these tools, and the search is much more demanding and difficult. BTW, part of the concrete troubles being minimized by such methods is that of excessive recall or false hits, an issue your method, as I said in my first reply, doesn't deal with and which you neglected respond to specifically in your reply. Another point: someone has to build and maintain a thesaurus - you need people for that, because, thesauri, as I'm sure you know, don't create themselves. Also, let me ask: you don't think your problem with indexer bias does not transfer in some fashion to thesaurus making? It was not that long ago that Microsoft got into a heap of trouble for some politically incorrect terms they used in their thesaurus for Word. Let me tell you: thesauri can be, in many or all cases, at the very root of so-called "indexer bias." Which is why good indexers frequently refuse to follow a thesaurus in some terms that come up. And what's rather interesting, with regard to "indexer bias," about this refusal is it shows indexers are willing to fight or limit terminological bias as much as possible. I was under the impression that the value of your approach is intended to automate the search process. But your allowing for thesauri brings people back into the loop, though in a different way, which is - given what I said above - OK with me, but it seems to contradict your method. BTW, what search programs do you know of that have a built-in and *comprehensive* search thesaurus that doesn't need to, unlike Medline, work with controlled indexing in order to work well? Especially one that is carefully maintained and updated regularly, and shows facets and higher-level and lower level and related relationships between terms? I'd love to get my hands on such a beastie. I bet someday there might be a market for such a thing divided along various specialties, using it to do web searches and which can perhaps be integrated with search engines like Alta Vista or Lycos. Excluding highly technical ones like MESH, probably; the closest thing that comes to this is LC's subject headings list, but it's not updated quickly enough and has many inconsistencies. But it's better than nothing I suppose. > As for indices being copyrightable and concordances not, I would > look in the Copyright Register. [But then you might have some of > a difference of opinion on what contitutes a concordance.] > >From the point of view of the searcher, concordances don't add much access value except for a very particular kind of search. Indeed, indexes are copyrightable because they add so much more access value than a concordance. > Last, but certainly not least, the biases in indexers. . . > ... > Even more obvious biases are reflected when comparing difference > type between brands of dictionaries and encylopedias and others. > Certainly no moderately experience reference librarian would get > the articles from the Britannica mixed up with the Americana, if > they were removed from other contextual variations. > > These biases are even more strongly in evidence in indices, when > someone has to make a choice whether or not to include something > that was included in the main text. These are value judgements, > and, as we all know, even the most rigid scholars cannot remove, > and sometime do not try to remove, their biases. Studies for an > assortment of perpectives on this are available in psyclological > journals over the decades. I have never seen even one indicated > result that even remotely pointed to any ability for scholars to > be able to remove even impersonal biases from their work. > Well, I don't and didn't disagree about indexer bias in my first post. But from what you say above, everybody has some biases that cannot be eliminated. But to reason from this that, "Therefore don't use indexes," which is what you implied in your prior post, is like saying scholars should not write, because, as you say above, "the most rigid scholars cannot remove...their biases." I think the common-sense view is to try to live with scholarly bias and indexer bias, especially if what we get in return outweighs what we lose from that bias. And as I said, good indexing gives us a lot more than we lose from so-called bias. Cliff Urr Galaxy Scientific Corp. Arlington, VA curr@mnsinc.com Personal Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/curr/ Cliff Urr Galaxy Scientific Corp. Arlington, VA curr@mnsinc.com Personal Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/curr/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:20:28 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Elinor Lindheimer Subject: Re: More botanical names Diane Worden wrote: >Recently Elinor suggested using both > ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. (African daisy) >and > African daisy. ^See^ ^Dimorphotheca^ spp. > >If this were the case, wouldn't a VERIFY command in CINDEX indicate a missing >cross-reference? It would look for ^Di...^ spp. and not find it; only finding >^Di...^ spp. (African daisy) instead. Is this easy to live with by just >ignoring CINDEX's "Missing" label or is there another way around this >automated response? In Macrex the cross-references are checked as I enter them, and I get a beep if the one I have just entered is not syntactically accurate. I can ignore the beep and just go on, since I know why it's happening. Then, I always look at the cross-reference file that Macrex generates before I deliver an index. I scan for "Not found" entries, and can usually remember why the "not found" appears or quickly check them, flipping between the index and the cross-reference list. I could also just print out the "not found" entries to do this, but I don't usually bother. I would presume you do the same in Cindex with the ^See also^ ^specific species^ entries, etc. They always come out "not found," but it's obvious why. Also, if the cross-reference is as above, Macrex would let it stand (the African daisy isn't necessary). Elinor Lindheimer elinorl@mcn.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:12:42 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Michael K. Smith" Subject: Re: Cindex, flipping caps At 12:36 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >I have been lobbying (unsuccessfully) for years for Cindex to add a setup >parameter that would allow individual users to set the default behavior for >the numeric plus key: either "flip caps" or "maintain caps." > >My reasoning is that a single large key is easier to use than two small, >widely-spaced keys. I am in the habit of using the large key, which works >fine until I hit a case sensitive entry, then I have to switch to the >awkward "ALT minus" combination. Since I *never* hard code initial caps and >*very often* deal with case-sensitive entries, I would like to set the >numeric plus key to maintain caps when flipping. > >My question to the group is: > >Would you find it beneficial to be able to customize the way the numeric >plus key works? (Assume that this is in addition to and not insted of any >current behavior.) > >Richard (Dick) Evans >Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. Absolutely! I *never* hard-code and I often have a great many case-sensitive entries (I do a lot of biographical and lit-crit stuff). It's been annoying me for years, even though I wouldn't use anything but Cindex. Maybe we can talk them into putting that into the new Windows version that's supposed to be out later this year.... Mike Michael K. Smith mksmith1@swbell.net Smith Editorial Services CIS: 73177,366 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It doesn't TAKE all kinds, we just HAVE all kinds... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:05:30 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Cindex, flipping caps At 07:12 PM 1/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >Absolutely! I *never* hard-code and I often have a great many >case-sensitive entries (I do a lot of biographical and lit-crit stuff). >It's been annoying me for years, even though I wouldn't use anything but >Cindex. Maybe we can talk them into putting that into the new Windows >version that's supposed to be out later this year.... Thank you for your support. The folks at Cindex have refused to make this change because they don't perceive enough advantage to the users (i.e. "Dick, you're the only one who wants it."). I have to believe that it would benefit *all* users who work in case-sensitive areas and don't hard code caps. Anyone else? Richard (Dick) Evans Infodex Indexing Services, Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:39:30 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Cindex (Mac), scripts, and flips PC users will probably not find this post very interesting, so . . . Larry's post the other day--at least I think it was Larry H.--about not using the mouse too much when using Cindex (using keyboard commands instead) inspired me to see whether I could quit mousing around so much. In particular, I'd been wondering whether I could use keyboard commands to select text, too. I played around a bit and rediscovered that when you hold the shift key down while you're moving the cursor, you select everything the cursor moves over. So, for example, if you want to highlight (select) the entire subentry line, position the cursor at the beginning of the line (or at the end) using arrow keys or the tab key, then do shift + command + right arrow (or left arrow, if you started at the end of the line). To select one word at a time, do shift + option + arrow. If anyone has easier ways to do this, please let me know. Have any of you tried writing AppleScript scripts to use with Cindex? Here's a situation I'd like to write one for. If I get it working, I'll share it with whoever wants it. That's assuming AppleScript will even work within Cindex. If not, I might break down and go Rachel's route and buy QuicKeys. So here's the flip I want to automate: Twain, Mark Huckleberry Finn Huckleberry Finn (Twain) That's a special kind of flip that, as far as I know, only HyperIndex can do with one simple keyboard command (option + switch). Although there's probably still a lot about Cindex's capabilities that I don't know. I have managed to figure out all the keyboard moves that will generate that second entry from the first main entry + sub, and all that remains is to write the script with those keyboard strokes in it. Too bad I've never used AppleScript before. ;-) BTW, does Larry or anyone else know of a 7.5 Finder shortcut to move the cursor from an open window in one program to an open window in another? (I'm copying and pasting from a Word doc. into Cindex, and that's the only time I still have to go to the mouse.) Sorry to be long-winded on something so esoteric, but small shortcuts do cut hours off of indexing jobs, so I feel justified. I hope others will continue to post shortcuts and workarounds, too. Cheers, Carol