I just finished the penultimate (and most annoying) step in publishing an issue of Cites & Insights–in this case, September 2011, C&I 11:8–and thought of two little items possibly worth noting.
Hey, it’s Saturday. Want profundity, you’ve come to the wrong day (and the wrong blog).
Lack of a caveat
The primary essay in this C&I is long–31 pages–and, as is even more the case with the new & improved HTML template, considerably longer if you download and print the HTML version. I make it 44 pages as print-previewed by Firefox.
In the past, although less so in recent months, I’ve cautioned against using and printing the HTML version when it’s that long–it’s a waste of paper.
I didn’t do that this time, partly because I doubt that many people actually do that (that is, download and print a big HTML version when a nicely-printable PDF version is available–I assume most people use the HTML version for on-screen/on-device reading), partly because the PDF version’s hyperlinks don’t work (an issue that won’t be resolved until/unless my “financial rewards from doing C&I” picture improves).
Item count
I don’t keep count of the source items used in long essays such as this one. I have Diigo’s initial count, but I sometimes decide not to discuss items I’ve tagged–and some items tagged in Diigo lead to other itmes.
But that annoying penultimate step is a good time to count the source items. This time around, if I count correctly, it’s an even 50.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition
And, for the third and fourth in this pair of items:
- Oops. I’ve fixed the two errors (spotted so far) in the post announcing this issue, at least the version on this blog–that is, the bad hyperlink and the claim that Writing about Reading occupies pages 1-4 rather than pages 2-32.
- What’s that annoying penultimate step? Indexing–never done very well, to be sure. I use a dummy document which makes it a lot easier, but it’s still a pain. Yes, I do appreciate the skills and patience of professional indexers. No, I don’t ever want to be one.
