-
Ross, J.: ¬The impact of technology on indexing (2000)
0.01
0.013581533 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = product of:
0.108652264 = sum of:
0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.108652264 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.25-26
-
Walker, A.: Indexing commonplace books : John Locke's method (2001)
0.01
0.013581533 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = product of:
0.108652264 = sum of:
0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.108652264 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.14-18
-
Crystal, D.: Quote index unquote (2000)
0.01
0.013581533 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = product of:
0.108652264 = sum of:
0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.108652264 = score(doc=487,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 487, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=487)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.14-20
-
Matthews, D.: Indexing published letters (2001)
0.01
0.013581533 = product of:
0.054326132 = sum of:
0.054326132 = product of:
0.108652264 = sum of:
0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.108652264 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.135-141
-
Hodges, J.E.: Automated systems for the generation of document indexes (2000)
0.01
0.013399946 = product of:
0.053599782 = sum of:
0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 4668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053599782 = score(doc=4668,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 4668, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4668)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.66, [=Suppl.29]
-
Davis, M.: Building a global legal index : a work in progress (2001)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 6443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=6443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6443, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6443)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.123-127
-
Browne, G.: ¬The definite article : acknowledging The in index entries (2001)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.119-122
-
Weinberg, B.H.: Book indexes in France : medieval specimens and modern practices (2000)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.2-13
-
Mauer, P.: Embedded indexing : pros and cons for the indexer (2000)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=488,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 488, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=488)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.27-28
-
Anderson, C.R.: Indexing with a computer : past and present (2000)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=489,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 489, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=489)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.23-24
-
Lee, D.: Judging indexes : the criteria for a good index (2001)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.191-194
-
Weinberg, B.H.: Predecessors of scientific indexing structures in the domain of religion (2001)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.178-180
-
Weinberg, B.H.: Index structures in early Hebrew Biblical word lists : preludes to the first Latin concordances (2004)
0.01
0.011883841 = product of:
0.047535364 = sum of:
0.047535364 = product of:
0.09507073 = sum of:
0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09507073 = score(doc=4180,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4180, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4180)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 17.10.2005 13:54:22
-
Olason, S.C.: Let's get usable! : Usability studies for indexes (2000)
0.01
0.009603594 = product of:
0.038414378 = sum of:
0.038414378 = product of:
0.076828755 = sum of:
0.076828755 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076828755 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.theindexer.org/files/22-2-olason.pdf.
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.91-95
-
Rice, R.: Putting sample indexes on your Web site (2000)
0.01
0.008544493 = product of:
0.03417797 = sum of:
0.03417797 = product of:
0.06835594 = sum of:
0.06835594 = weight(_text_:project in 226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06835594 = score(doc=226,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32310158 = fieldWeight in 226, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=226)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Bell, H.K.: History of societies of indexing : part VII: 1992-95 (2000)
0.01
0.008488459 = product of:
0.033953834 = sum of:
0.033953834 = product of:
0.06790767 = sum of:
0.06790767 = weight(_text_:22 in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06790767 = score(doc=113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.81-83
-
Wool, G.: Filing and precoordination : how subject headings are displayed in online catalogs and why it matters (2000)
0.01
0.008121594 = product of:
0.032486375 = sum of:
0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032486375 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
- Source
- The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
-
Hedden, H.: Creating an index for your Web site to make info easier to see (2006)
0.01
0.0076571116 = product of:
0.030628446 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Most libraries have long had their own Web sites. The longer a library has had a Web site the more likely it is that the number of pages, and the amount of information within those pages, has grown beyond what users can find simply with the navigation menu. Building a site index is a great way to help seekers find all those bits of data they might otherwise miss.
-
Mulvany, N.C.: Back-of-the-book indexing (2009)
0.01
0.0076571116 = product of:
0.030628446 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=3749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3749)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Woods, X.B.: Envisioning the word : Multimedia CD-ROM indexing (2000)
0.01
0.006976548 = product of:
0.027906192 = sum of:
0.027906192 = product of:
0.055812385 = sum of:
0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055812385 = score(doc=223,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 223, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=223)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- If you are an indexer who is accustomed to working in solitude with static words, you might face some big surprises in the production of a multimedia CD-ROM. You will not be working alone. You will not be working from a manuscript. Your dexterity with a dedicated software tool for indexing will be irrelevant. The coding or tagging might not be your worry either, because it will likely be done by members of a separate technical staff. The CD-ROM can currently hold 660 megabytes of data. Its production is a massive team effort. Because of the sheer volume of data involved, it is unlikely that one indexer working alone can handle the job in a reasonable period of time. The database for the actual index entries is likely to have been designed specifically for the project at hand, so the indexers will learn the software tools on the job. The entire project will probably be onscreen. So, if you choose to thrust yourself into this teeming amalgam of production, what are the prerequisites and what new things can you expect to learn? CD-ROM is an amorphous new medium with few rules. Your most important resume items might be your flexibility, imagination, and love of words. What remains unchanged from traditional back-of-the-book indexing is the need for empathy with the user; you will still need to come up with exactly the right word for the situation. What is new here is the situation: you might learn to envision the words that correspond to non-textual media such as graphics, photos, video clips, and musical passages. And because you will be dealing with vast amounts of textual and sensory data, you might find yourself rethinking the nature and purpose of an index as a whole. CD-ROM production can take many forms; three will be discussed here
