Search (40 results, page 2 of 2)

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 7920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=7920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 7920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Part of a larger study which aims to: empirically investigate book-index usage, behaviours, and the extent to which specific print index features affect a user's search for information; and to examine these features in an electronic environment and to determine the optimum specifications for indexes in electronic texts by gathering evidence from a controlled user study. Provides an overview of the research project, focusing on a subset of the results from the study of hard-copy book indexes. Describes observable behaviours of a sample of users when consulting different variations of a hard copy book index. Suggests a preliminary model at 3 levels of abstraction repressing users' behaviours when using a book index

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 8500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=8500,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 8500, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8500)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Gives an overview of a research project which had aimed to: empirically investigate book-index usage behaviours and the extent to which specific print index features affect a user's search for information; and to examine these same features in an electronic environment. Aims to determine the optimum specifications for indexes in electronic texts by gathering evidence from a controlled user study. Presents a subset of results from index use in both print and electronic formats. Suggests a preliminay model representing users' behaviours when using an index and suggests implications for system design

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 4037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=4037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4037)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes an effective, simple and efficient algorithm for computer generation of hierarchical indices from Document Term matrices by means of calculating common denominator vectors from the document vector set. This procedure produces an intuitive, user friendly hierarchical index of a document collection not unlike that which would be expected had a manual indexer set about to create an index or outline of a collection. The resulting index, when presented with a graphical user interface, provides the user with a natural easily comprehended view of the document collection, permits general browsing and informal search activities with an access method that requires no keyboard entry or prior knowledge of the vocabulary

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 6106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=6106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 6106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6106)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Users of the Information Superhighway need signposts to find their way to appropriate, accurate and current information. Given the sheer quantity of information, intellectual indexing is more relevant than ever, complementing and augmenting automatic keyword indexing. Signposts come in various forms including browser bookmarks, local, on-site and remote lists, indexes and directories, temporary search engine results, and metadata. The considerable body of theory on vocabulary control for online database searching can be adapted to index construction for the Internet. At the same time, there are unresolved issues concerning information quality, indexing decisions, and standards

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=5396,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5396, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5396)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.1, S.46-47 (R. Fugmann)

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Indexer 22(2000) no.1, S.51 (R. Davis)

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subjecl Headings retrieved as the results of a search in an online catalog are likely to be filed in straight alphabetical, word-by-word order, ignoring the semantic structures of these headings and scattering headings of a similar type. This practice makes LC headings unnecessarily difficult to use and negates much of their indexing power. Enthusiasm for filing simplicity and postcoordinate indexing are likely contributing factors to this phenomenon. Since the report Headings for Tomorrow (1992) first raised this issue, filing practices favoring postcoordination over precoordination appear to have become more widespread and more entrenched

0.012843484 = product of:
  0.03853045 = sum of:
    0.03853045 = product of:
      0.0770609 = sum of:
        0.0770609 = weight(_text_:22 in 6940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0770609 = score(doc=6940,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 6940, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8. 3.1997 20:22:25

Source

Indexer. 20(1996) no.1, S.18-22

0.012843484 = product of:
  0.03853045 = sum of:
    0.03853045 = product of:
      0.0770609 = sum of:
        0.0770609 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0770609 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.theindexer.org/files/22-2-olason.pdf.

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.91-95

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.81-83

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Do indexers really need Web sites? No, they do not. Indexers do not need computers either. Indexes can be done on cards; networking can be done at conferences; and marketing can be done with cold calls. But, just as email has become indispensable to communication, and computers have become essential to indexing, so Web sites have become more and more necessary for all types of businesses, particularly small companies with small advertising budgets, like indexing businesses. The amount of business being conducted on the Web is increasing exponentially. Publishers, packagers, and other potential clients are beginning to search the Web for indexers. Why not participate in e-commerce, the newest way of doing business? A good Web site not only helps you obtain work, it increases your professional reputation and helps you influence the future of indexing. You can use your site as an online resume, to display a list of all the books you have indexed in the past year, to provide examples of your work, and to network with others. You can use it to express your philosophy of indexing, to teach others about indexing, and to make your voice heard on issues affecting the indexing profession. Not all indexers need Web sites, but active, involved, and far-sighted indexers, like you, do!

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 737, 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=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.12.2007 18:41:22

0.007946501 = product of:
  0.0238395 = sum of:
    0.0238395 = product of:
      0.047679 = sum of:
        0.047679 = weight(_text_:22 in 7288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047679 = score(doc=7288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7288, 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=7288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 44(1993) no.2, S.119-121 (B.H. Weinberg); International cataloguing and bibliographic control 22(1993) no.2, S.34 (E. Svenonius); Information processing and management 29(1993) no.4, S.528-531 (L.L.Hill)

0.007946501 = product of:
  0.0238395 = sum of:
    0.0238395 = product of:
      0.047679 = sum of:
        0.047679 = weight(_text_:22 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047679 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 4.2000 17:22:00

0.007946501 = product of:
  0.0238395 = sum of:
    0.0238395 = product of:
      0.047679 = sum of:
        0.047679 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047679 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.0067099286 = product of:
  0.020129785 = sum of:
    0.020129785 = weight(_text_:search in 5142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020129785 = score(doc=5142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.1152035 = fieldWeight in 5142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5142)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Mit Google Print bzw. mittlerweile Google Book Search und dem Projekt zur Übernahme eines brancheneigenen Portals zur Pflege und Bereitstellung digitaler Daten aus Büchern namens "Volltextsuche online" initiiert durch den Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels tritt ein Thema auf den Plan, das im deutschen Sprachraum lange vernachlässigt wurde: allgemein gesprochen, die Notwendigkeit der Texterschließung durch Indexierung - sei sie gedruckt in Form von Registern im Anhang von Sach- und wissenschaftlichen Büchern oder ungedruckt in Form sog. Volltextabfragen per Suchmaske am Computer. Angesichts der exponentiell wachsenden Menge an Wissen ist es gut, wenn hierzu Überlegungen angestellt werden und damit die Chance besteht, neben der wirtschaftlichen auch über die wissenstheoretische Dimension dieser Dienste nachzudenken. Zweifellos wird die Bedeutung der Indexierung von Fließtext aus wissenstheoretischer Sicht in Zukunft noch weiter wachsen und bedeutet im Falle einer Online-Plattform (wenn sie denn in naher Zukunft eine hinreichend große Menge an Büchern in ihrem Datenbestand aufweisen wird) die Erfüllung eines Traumes für die wissenschaftliche Arbeit: Es ist fantastisch, in Millisekunden das Vorhandensein von Personen, Termen, Phrasen und Wortkomposita zu ermitteln, um die Ein- bzw. Nichteinschlägigkeit eines Buches und - mehr noch -vieler Bücher für die eigene Arbeit eindeutig beantworten zu können. Es ist fantastisch, im Trefferfall die gesuchte Information sogleich auf dem Monitor exzerpieren zu können oder sich auch bei ausbleibenden Treffern das Durcharbeiten eines ganzen Buches, vielleicht sogar einer halben Bibliothek ersparen zu können. Dabei ist das letztere Resultat mindestens eine genauso wichtige Information wie die erste, denn auch sie wird- man darf fast sagen, so gut wie immer - zu einer unglaublichen Ersparnis an Zeit verhelfen; hier bedeutet allein schon die Verringerung der Datenmenge einen Zuwachs an Wissen unter minimalem Zeitaufwand. Angesichts dieser Diagnose ist die These zu wagen, die digitale Revolution beginnt erst wirklich bei der Nutzung der Volltexte selbst als Datenquelle zur Wissensabfrage.

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0039732503 = product of:
  0.01191975 = sum of:
    0.01191975 = product of:
      0.0238395 = sum of:
        0.0238395 = weight(_text_:22 in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0238395 = score(doc=1502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.