#ls566

Thanks to guidance from the fabulous DAM Debey’s blog post on her process, I finally dove in and started my indexing, but realized I quickly forgot the rules as soon as I had entered something. And I was so cocky that I had not even read the guidelines for selecting the coverage.temporal guidelines, because surely! That’s obvious...it’s the year the game is played, right?! Oh wait, on my final read when I got insecure, sure enough - the following January is considered part of the previous year (which makes more sense, as I work in education and we think of everything as July 1-June 30 instead of calendar year).

I had to go back and change my titles after re-reading the indexing guideline on that element - I realized that I was basically including a lot lot lot of of of duplication duplication duplication (see what I did there?) of info that was already covered in other elements.

But it is hard not to include some of that; what if clients only peruse the titles instead of searching deeply for the other element info? Hrm. Should I put the dates back in? If I had not waited until the last minute, I could have gotten advice from my class colleagues, but that is not the way I roll (I’m a masochist).

I did take heed after my third review of the title guideline to spell-out things and  change “vs.” to “versus.” Rule-follower in some respects!

But hey, here is me in both cooking and indexing...

I feel I received the easiest of elements for our client project, but of course I obsess about the correct way to state it anyway! Would love feedback from my fab group. :) See my draft in the wiki, and questions below...

1) Am I including too much detail?

2) Is the roster/actual list of preferred names/initials appropriate for the creation guidelines, or would the notes field be more appropriate?

3) Our class does not have any duplicate first/last initial combinations. In the event that we did, I had planned to make the indexer initials element include a number. Example: John Smith would be JS1, the next John Smith would be JS2, etc. Is that a good tactic? What would you advise for a best practice?

http://nathan.torkington.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Where-It-All-Went-Wrong.pdf

Bad book metadata can make or break book sales as the heart of the article points out.  I've had this happen on several occasions-books with the same name, authors with the same name, a slip up in the metadata and your book is under another book's ISBN.  Oh the joys and problems of metadata.  It can also be a (insert bad word) to fix because all vendors make changes to a book's data on their sites at different times #headaches

After reading this article I can honestly say I will never look at metadata the same again...or maybe I wasn't looking at it properly in the first place.  Hopefully this class can help me learn about metadata and all it has to offer.