Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

0.015150423 = product of:
  0.030300846 = sum of:
    0.030300846 = product of:
      0.060601693 = sum of:
        0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060601693 = score(doc=218,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My goal in this short article is to bring you up to speed on Web indexing. I assume you are a person with good word skills and an inquisitive mind. Also, I assume you have good keyboard skills, access to the Internet, and have already created some HTML pages using, say, Netscape Composer. You may need help from your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to upload pages onto your Web site. This article is based on my experience teaching an online interactive course in Web indexing for my company, WWWalker Web Development, in 1998. We develop Web sites, support Linux and Windows NT, write technical articles, and specialize in Web indexing.

0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012370269 = product of:
  0.024740538 = sum of:
    0.024740538 = product of:
      0.049481075 = sum of:
        0.049481075 = weight(_text_:i in 226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049481075 = score(doc=226,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.28871292 = fieldWeight in 226, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why do you need samples of your indexing work on your Web site? Think about these situations: Scenario 1: You've contacted a potential client who says he has a project ready to be assigned. He requests some samples of your work. You fax them to him right away and call back a few hours later. "Oh," he says, "I didn't get the fax but anyway I already assigned the project. I can keep your name for future reference, though." Scenario 2: Another potential client asks you to send her some samples and if they're satisfactory, she'll put you on the freelance list. You mail them to her, or even FedEx them if you can spend the money. You wait a week and call her back. She does not remember who you are, and has not seen the samples. If she can find them, she says, she will file them for future reference. Scenario 3: You contacted a potential client who has asked to see some samples of your work. As it happens, she has a project ready to go and if your work is acceptable, you can have the job. You can FedEx her some samples, or you can fax them, she says. You think about FedEx and faxing costs, and mail and faxes that never get to her desk, and the risk of losing the assignment if she calls someone else later today, which she almost surely will, and you suggest an alternative. If she has Internet access, she can see a list of the indexes you've completed, and some samples of your indexes instantly. She is impressed that you have the know-how to create a Web site, and agrees to take a look and call you back shortly. You give her your URL and your phone number, and stand by. In five minutes she calls you back, says she is pleased with what she saw, and asks for your address so she can send the job out to you today.

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the InfoAccess Project at the Univ of Saskatchewan Libraries which compared searching of manual and automated indexes by 22 undergraduate psychology students to determine their searching preferences by ranking 'Psychological abstracts' in 3 formats: print, CD-ROM and a locally mounted tape service called InfoAccess. Their satisfaction regarding the physical environment, equipment, and instructional aids was also recorded. Users preferred to search with CD-ROM, but found InfoAccess to be an acceptable alternative

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Indexer. 21(1998) no.1, S.22-23

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 4.2000 17:22:00

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The explosion in personal computing and in computer technology has brought a wealth of opportunities for indexers. Annually, traditional publishers produce numerous books on computer topics, while software and hardware companies constantly issue new products with manuals that require indexes. Indexers can find work with these high-technology publishers or can subcontract with technical documentation firms or with freelance technical writers. The range of audiences for computer-related documents is wide and varied, as is the range of topics. These documents are not limited to end-user software manuals, but include programming, Internet, and networking topics among others. Hardware companies, in addition to computer manufacturers, are also a good potential source of clients. Many hardware products have a sizeable software component that requires its own set of indexed manuals. There are advantages and disadvantages to working with high-technology companies (and their contractors) vs. working with traditional publishers. It is simply a matter of personal taste which type of client you prefer. I have truly enjoyed working with both.

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today, more and more software packages come with online documentation. Some have complete manuals as well. Others have basic documentation on paper and more advanced information online. I recently purchased a computer that came with 20 software programs and not one page of written documentation. More and more, users have to find information by searching online. Most documentation teams focus on writing and ignore the problems of information retrieval, making information in printed documents difficult to find, and online information impossible to find. With online Help, you cannot browse the documentation. You cannot even browse more than a couple of inches of the index at a time. If online users do not get superb guidance into the jungle of online Help, they go away like the hero of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, saying "Oh, the horror! The horror!" How does an online Help index work? The following examples are based on the Windows 95 Help-type system, but do not represent actual Help screens

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The "Relative Index" of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is investigated over the span of its lifetime in 22 editions of the DDC as to its character as a concept indexing system, its provision of conceptual contexts for the terms it lists, and the way in which the index intersects with special tables of categories used in the system. Striking features of the index that are discussed include how the locater function of an index is expressed in it, its practice of including concepts that have not been given specific notational locations in the system, its two methods of providing conceptual contexts for indexed terms (by means of the notation of the system and by the insertion of enhancement terms that portray conceptual context), and how the index has intersected with three types of special tables of categories in the system. Critical issues raised include the indexing of constructed or synthesized complex concepts, inconsistencies in how enhancement terms are portrayed and the absence of them in some instances, the problem of equating conceptual context with disciplinary context, and problems associated with not indexing one type of special table. Summary and conclusions are extended to problems that arise in studying the index.

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=1823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 1823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Qualität der Register und das Fachwissen zur Registererstellung befindet sich hierzulande nach DNI-Einschätzung generell in einem schlechten Zustand - auch im wissenschaftlichen Verlagswesen. Grundlegende Fehler kommen immer wieder vor, sowohl was die Erstellung der Index-Einträge als auch typografische Aspekte angeht. Oft wird auch bei der Vorgehensweise der Registererstellung das Rad neu erfunden, obwohl es bewährte Tech n i ken, Methoden und Software gibt. Das DNI möchte helfen, diesen Zustand zu verbessern und derartige Defizite und verbreitete Fehleinschätzungen zum Indexing abzubauen. Ein Schwerpunkt der bisherigen Info-Veranstaltungen auf der Buchmesse waren Präsentationen moderner Software für die Indexerstellung. Dabei handelt es sich um Programme, die die intellektuelle Arbeit des Indexers auf effektive Weise unterstützen. Diese spezielle lndexing-Software ist in der weltweit führenden Indexing-Szene in angloamerikanischen Ländern weit verbreitet. Das DNI unterhält sehr gute Beziehungen zu den Partnerverbänden in anderen Ländern, so zum Beispiel zum Nederlands Indexers Netwerk (NIN), aber auch zu den großen Fachverbänden, der Society of indexers (SI) in Großbritannien und der American Society of Indexers (ASI). Die SI feierte letztes Jahr ihr 50-jähriges Bestehen und gibt seit 1958 die Fachzeitschrift »The Indexer - The International Journal of lndexing« heraus. Auf der DNI-Website (www.d-indexer.org) werden im Bereich »Fragen« Aspekte der Registererstellung erläutert. Der Bereich »Ressourcen« beinhaltet unter anderem eine Bibliografie mit deutsch sprachigem Kontext, Index-Rezensionen und Links zu Indexer-Fachverbänden. Im Bereich »Mitglieder« finden sich auch diejenigen Indexer, die Registererstellung für Verlage und andere Auftraggeber anbieten. Für eine spezielle Suche innerhalb der Website steht ein ständig aktualisierter Site Index zur Verfügung. Das DNI ist stets daran interessiert, neue Kontakte zu knüpfen, insbesondere auch zu fachlich verwand ten Organisationen und Personen, die ein Interesse daran haben, Registererstellung als eigenständiges Fachgebiet hierzulande voranzubringen."

0.005386857 = product of:
  0.010773714 = sum of:
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = weight(_text_:22 in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021547427 = score(doc=1502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Unter der Leitung von Frank Merrett von der Socieryy of Indexers (www.indexers.org.uk), die in Sheffield ihren Hauptsitz hat, fand am 22. Januar in London ein Workshop statt, in dem Einblicke in das Indexing (Registererstellung) ermöglicht wurden. SechsTeilnehmerinnen und drei Teilnehmer (Bibliothekare, Katalogisierer, angehende Indexer, Benutzer von Indices) bekamen durch Merrett neben den grundlegenden Dingen auch ein wenig Einblick in die Berufswirklichkeit eines Indexers vermittelt. Zunächst wurden einige Definitionen dessen, was ein Index ist, angesprochen: Ein Index (Register) ist eine systematische Anordnung von Eintragungen, die es dem Benutzer ermöglichen, Informationen in einem Dokument zu finden (nach Norm BS ISO 999,1996). Auch andere Definitionen besagen, dass die im Hauptteil eines Dokuments enthaltenen Informationen so herausgefiltert werden sollen, dass durch die Benutzung des Registers ein möglichst benutzerfreundlicher Zugang zum Hauptteil erfolgen kann. Ein Index soll den einen Benutzer entscheiden lassen, ob ein Dokument etwas für ihn Interessantes enthält. Dem anderen soll es dazu dienen, das Gelesene wieder aufzufrischen. Ein Index muss beiden gerecht werden. Nach Eintreffen des Materials vom Verlag (sehr oft als Papierausdruck) beginnt der erste Schritt, der vom persönlichen Arbeitsstil des Indexers abhängt. Manche beginnen sofort beim Lesen mit dem Niederschreiben von Begriffen, oft unter Verwendung von Software (Macrex, Cindex), andere markieren oder unterstreichen zunächst die relevanten Begriffe. Hier beginnt die eigentliche Arbeit, die darin besteht, wichtige Informationen aus dem Text herauszufiltern und so aufzubereiten, dass ein Buchleser zu Wichtigem hingeführt wird. Dazu gehören Entscheidungen wie zum Beispiel »was ist wichtig«, »was kann/ muss weggelassen werden«, »wo müssen Siehe- beziehungsweise Siehe-auch-Verweise eingebrachtwerden«. Bibliothekarisch gesehen, ist dies Sacherschließung und zugleich formale Erfassung, letztlich das Aufbauen eines Kreuzkatalogs. So wie ein Sacherschließer muss auch ein Indexer ständig überlegen, mit welchen Begriffen er dem Benutzer des Registers einen guten Zugang zur Information verschaffen kann. Ein gutes Verständnis des Faches, das in der Vorlage behandelt wird, ist deshalb unbedingt notwendig. Das wurde anhand einiger Seiten geübt, genauso wie das Aufbe-reiten des Index. Äußerste Genauigkeit ist hier nötig. Anhand eines fertigen Index mit eingebauten Ungenauigkeiten wurde geübt, sehr genau hinzuschauen und kleinste Ungenauigkeiten zu erkennen. Merrett sagte, dass ein gut geschriebenes Buch besser zu bearbeiten sei als eines, das einen weniger guten Hauptteil hat. Oft hat ein Indexer nur zwei Wochen Zeit für die Erstellung eines Registers. Die wenigsten dürften allerdings ständig von morgens bis abends an einem Index arbeiten, und nur sehr wenige verdienen ausschließlich mit dem Erstellen von Registern ihren Lebensunterhalt. Meistens ist dies ein Nebenjob. Nach Frank Merrett sind die Verhandlungen mit einem Verlag über einen zu erstellenden Index recht vorsichtig zu führen. Insbesondere über die Termine (Eintreffen des Manuskripts, Abliefern des Produkts) sowie die Form der Vorlage (welches Format, welcher Umfang) muss sich ein Indexer absichern, um keine Überraschungen zu erleben. So kann es sein, dass die Vorlage nicht als Buch, sondern als ein Stapel von Druckbogen, ungefalzt und unsortiert, ankommt. Auch das Honorar muß vom Indexer in Anbetracht des zu erwartenden Aufwandes verhandelt werden. Indexer ist keine geschützte Bezeichnung, deshalb kann sich jeder so nennen. Die Prüfungen, die man bei der Sociery of Indexers ablegen kann, sind aber ein Qualitätsnachweis. Die Society kann durch das Aufführen der Namen und Spezialgebiete auf der Homepage beziehungsweise in einem Verzeichnis einiges für die Mitglieder tun. Die Sociery legt auf das Kontakthalten mit Verlegern großen Wert, um dort auf die Dienste der Indexer hinzuweisen. Um Aufträge muß sich aber jeder selbst kümmern.