Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994)
0.01
0.011837761 = product of:
0.023675522 = sum of:
0.023675522 = product of:
0.047351044 = sum of:
0.047351044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047351044 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15298171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043686222 = 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 Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries.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
