RE: RE: Indexing style refs

Subject: RE: RE: Indexing style refs
From: John Posada <JPosada -at- book -dot- com>
To: 'Maggie Pierce Secara' <maggiros -at- yahoo -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:03:06 -0400

I'm not advocating one entry and I'm advocating more than just basic. I have
no problem with 3, 5, even up to 10 for very broad or far-reaching terms.
However, I stop at taking the responsibility that if I put 10 and someone
can't find the term because they didn't make an effort to think a little,
then it's me that's wrong by default.

>You need both "opening a file" and "files, opening",

Granted. But if someone decides that they don't like "opening a file", and
they don't like "launching a file", but they like "initiating a file" and
they don't find it, I'm to blame?

John Posada
Information Hunter-Gatherer
Special Projects; Information Technology
Barnes&Noble.com
NY: 212-414-6656


But the index also has to be useful, not just accurate. SO
you have to take into account at least the basic ways you
can think of someone looking up something.

You need both "opening a file" and "files, opening", even
if you don't need to include "tinkering with files".




Follow-Ups:

Previous by Author: RE: Indexing style refs
Next by Author: RE: Indexing style refs
Previous by Thread: RE: Indexing style refs
Next by Thread: Re: Indexing style refs


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads