Recent searches
Search options
Poll for the #BookHistory peeps: For the SHARP annual bibliographies, do you have a preference for
A) just plain A-Z ordering by last name or
B) is it very worth it to you for me to divide things by subject?
@BiblioWingate We are grateful for your service either way. Sometimes, when I try to divide things by topic, it gets very subjective and one can tie oneself into knots trying to make the right decision. So: a lot of extra effort for you. It may in part depend on the length of the list, though: if the choices are subjective but the list is not too long, you can't go too far wrong. But a digitally searchable list makes things easy for the user either way. Do what is most practical for you.
@CitizenWald @BiblioWingate already voted on a different platform but echoing Jim’s point here: it’s a lot of extra work for you and I suspect there are easy enough tools for people who really want to insist on only looking at specific pieces (which don’t get me started on that problem!)
@wynkenhimself @CitizenWald I did it that way last year, but I know the previous bibliographer did separate by topic in the past. I agree that it is a lot more work for me (though made easier by Zotero!). Given that the cross-platform response has been "A", I'm sticking to that, and if people import it into Zotero, then they can search by subject headings!