Where to place search terms in first reference note?

By Anonymous on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 18:22

Forums

I'm trying to construct a citation for one page of a two-page entry (somewhat equivalent to a very short chapter) in a book that was published as an eBook shortly after its publication as a hardback. I used the eBook, not the hardback, in my research. As best as I can tell, the eBook is an image copy of the print edition (which offers a "Look Inside" at www.amazon.com .)

I found the entry by doing a general Google search for "Indianapolis Star" + circulation + 1960. The hit list included a working link to p. 808 of The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis at Google Books. Unfortunately the URL was of the "on the fly" and excessively long type that doesn't necessarily allow someone to get back to the same location later.

The Google Books website allows the user to browse some but not all pages (including p. 808) of this particular book.  In an attempt to direct a future reader to page 808, I did a search from within Google Books, using the search terms "Encyclopedia of Indianapolis" + largest + circulation + newspaper. That led me directly and reliably to p. 808. I think the best way to point a reader to my source is to cite the Google Books website home page and list the search terms I used.

I think I've put together a satisfactory citation except for the fact that I'm not sure where to place the search terms. My tentative first reference note is:

Beth Murphy, “Indianapolis Star,” Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, David J. Bodenhamer and Robert G. Barrows, editors (1994); digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 29 December 2013 using search terms: “Encyclopedia of Indianapolis” + largest + circulation + newspaper), 808.

Any suggestions or corrections would be most appreciated.

Niggling questions, while I'm at it:

1. Should I insert "in" after "Indianapolis Star," in line 1?

2. Is (1994) in the correct location? (Both the hardback and eBook were published in November 1994.)

3. Should "digital images," be singular (referring to the one page I'm citing) or plural (because the website has images of the entire book)?

4. Is "accessed" the best term to describe my use of the website? (I couldn't download an image of the page, but I captured a screen shot for my files.)

5. Should I include "pp. 807-808" somewhere to indicate the range covered by the "Indianapolis Star" entry even though I'm citing only p. 808? If so, where?

Many thanks for your insights and your patience.

Linda Johnson

Submitted bydocjavadudeon Mon, 01/06/2014 - 01:55

Linda, I'm really intrigued by your question and look forward to responses.  My initial thought is that search terms are not reliable enough to get someone else back to your page 808, and I am not familiar with using them in a citation.

I wonder if there might be another solution -- a way for you to get closer to the actual source (the printed book).  Would a library have access to the book for you?  And here's where I'm thinking a bit creatively, would it be possible to contact a reference librarian in Indianapolis (public or academic library) who might be willing to confirm the information on page 808 of an actual book.  I would think you could then use a reference to the book rather than the Google Books version.  You would not be holding the book in your own hands, but could consider the Indianapolis librarian as a sort of "research assistant" who would participate in your research.

I know it's not answering your citation question, but you might have a more reliable source and would certainly have an easier citation.  <grin>

Thanks for your suggested workaround. Yes, I definitely could request a lookup (plus an image copy to avoid having to add the librarian’s reply to my citation <grin>) of p. 808 from the printed book—I’ve done that in the past—but I suspect this situation may come up again in my research as more and more books are reprinted online, so I’d really like to learn how to handle the questions I raised.

I don’t know how far into the future it’ll be possible to get to p. 808 of the eBook using search terms, but when I tried it again just now this is what happened:

I went to www.books.google.com and entered “‘Encyclopedia of Indianapolis’ largest circulation newspaper” into the search box. That led to a results page at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Encyclopedia+of+Indianapolis%22+largest+circulation+newspaper&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 in which the first hit was captioned, “The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis – Page 808.” Clicking on it led me to http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C&pg=PA808&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+Indianapolis%22+largest+circulation+newspaper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HAzLUs_bGKms2wXoi4G4Aw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Encyclopedia%20of%20Indianapolis%22%20largest%20circulation%20newspaper&f=false , where I was able to see an image of p. 808 in its entirety and also scroll up and down to the preceding and following pages.

The interesting thing is that starting from scratch to try to get back to p. 808 by entering that last long URL in a new Internet session leads either to the results page above, as happened when I just now tried it again, or to a Google Books notice that I’ve used up my allowed browsing quota, as happened a couple of times before I posted my original question. (There is a notice to the left of the p. 808 image, stating that pages from the book are displayed by permission of Indiana University Press, which holds the copyright.) So my experience indicates that the search terms I used would give a reader a better chance of locating p. 808 online than the long, “on the fly” URL. (EE 2.37 in the 2007 edition recommends citing “the website’s home page, along with keywords in the path that takes a browser to the proper site” but doesn’t include a sample citation showing the placement of those keywords.)

I’m sure I’ve seen citations that include keywords or search terms before, but I didn’t make a note of any and can’t put my hands on an example. Maybe someone else can.

Linda

Submitted byEEon Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:08

Linda,

You are to be commended for your thoughtful analysis of what you are using, and you've done an excellent job of working with EE 12.52–12.54 to create a citation when EE doesn't supply an exact model for your need. Docjavadude has also raised a potentially significant issue from the research standpoint. It is possible that, if you had access to the context in which that snippet appeared, you might find more useful information or you might discover that the context creates a different nuance from the one implied by the isolated snippet.

There is also another issue worth considering: Whenever you obtain a photocopy of a page from a published book, do you feel that your citation needs to describe the machinations you went through to obtain that photocopy? More generally, do you deem it important for a citation to describe the research methodology by which you located a piece of published information?

If your answer to the last question is yes, then EE would make a few tweaks in your suggested citation:

Beth Murphy, “Indianapolis Star,” Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, David J. Bodenhamer and Robert G. Barrows, editors (Place of Publication: Publisher, 1994), 808; digital snippets, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 29 December 2013), located using search terms: “Encyclopedia of Indianapolis” + largest + circulation + newspaper.

Explanations:

  1. Place of publication and name of publisher are always essential when citing a published book. Google Books usually provides this.
  2. The page number is moved because related items should always be kept together. You are citing information from p. 808 of the encyclopedia. You are not citing the 808th page of results you got from using that search term.
  3. For future analysis, it would be wise to note that what you saw at Google Books was only a snippet, not an image of the full page.
  4. Parentheses, in citations to published works, are used to set off "publication data"—i.e., place and date of pub and optionally the publisher. That applies to both printed publications and online publications. Whatever added comments we want to make about the nature of the source, our analysis of its content, etc., goes in the comment field at the end of the citation, which always falls outside the parentheses.

Submitted byLinda Johnsonon Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:07

Many thanks for your suggestions, questions and explanations.

To clarify what I saw with regard to your reminder about the importance of context: happily I was able view more than a snippet of p. 808. The image was of the whole page, and from it I was able to scroll to complete images of the preceding and following pages, so I did have the opportunity to read the full “Indianapolis Star” entry on pp. 807-808 as well as capture screen shots of it. I wholeheartedly agree that context can be crucial. However, in this case the research problem was simple—Question: Was the Indianapolis Star the largest circulation newspaper in Indiana circa 1960? Answer: Yes, the author writes on p. 808, “By 1947 the Star was dominating the city’s other newspapers. . . . The paper has been the city’s and state’s largest circulation newspaper [ever] since [i.e., up to 1994].”

To answer the questions in the second paragraph of your reply: I don’t consider it necessary (or even desirable) to describe how I obtained a photocopy of a page from a hardcopy published book. With those online reprints whose access is somewhat restricted by the host website due to copyright considerations, I think the advice in EE 2.37 (2007 edition) to cite “the website’s home page, along with keywords in the path that takes a browser to the proper site” is useful, given the problems a reader might face in trying to locate the same information later (as described in my original post and my reply to Docjavadude, above). That’s what I had in mind when I proposed including the search terms somewhere in the citation. Are you suggesting that’s overkill in this case? If I leave out the search terms, should I cite just the generic Google Books URL or the much longer, “on the fly” URL?

Thank you for tweaking my proposed citation and explaining the reasons for your changes. #2 and #4 are clear to me. As for #3, I assume you’ll approve of my changing “digital images” to “image reprints” instead of  digital snippets” since what I saw were full-page facsimile reprints. [Having reread EE 12.79, I think “image reprints” is more specific and, therefore, more useful than “digital images.”]

However, I’m confused about #1. You wrote:

<1) Place of publication and name of publisher are always essential when citing a published book. /Google Books/ usually provides this.

However EE 12.78 (2007 edition) says:

“When citing a reprint, it is not necessary to identify the original publisher or original place of publication. However the original date of publication should be noted.”

As best I can tell, I’m citing an online facsimile reprint (image copy or reprint) of a traditionally published book. Therefore I assumed I should follow EE 12.78. I can easily understand why it’s necessary to cite full publication information when citing a hardcopy book. Adding the place of publication and name of publisher to my citation would be easy to do—I have the information and certainly don’t object to including it. However, I’m confused by what seems to me to be a contradiction between that recommendation and the advice in EE 12.78 with regard to the online reprint citation we’re discussing. Could you please clarify?

Linda

Submitted byLinda Johnsonon Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:14

Oops! I accidentally clicked the wrong reply button. My post #5 should have been in reply to #4, not #3. Sorry!

Linda

Submitted byEEon Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:31

Linda,

Thanks for clarifying the situation. It will also help others who study the comments made by you, docjavadude, and EE. Your latest raises two key issues:

Should we cite the long, dynamic URLs that result from queries?

As a rule, this is inadvisable. Even though we may be able to use that URL again and again, it is often because our own browser has cached the page. Someone else trying to use it would likely get an error message--and we're likely to get it after flushing our cache.

Is a digital image a "facsimile reprint"?

Modern technology has blurred many conventional frameworks for defining source types. This is one of them. EE's treatment of "facsimile reprints" uses the term for conventional print publications made by printing an exact image of the original. That once was done via film and offset printing, but even photography today has gone digital and facsimile reprints are more likely to be done now by digital scans. When those digital scans are published online, the tendency (in our observation) is to refer to the result as "digital images," but there's certainly a legitimate argument to be made for considering the new version to be a facsimile reprint in electronic form. EE would not fault that approach.

 

 

Submitted byLinda Johnsonon Tue, 01/07/2014 - 13:19

Thanks very much for your additional explanations. They’ve helped me to understand the subtle distinctions in terminology that I was getting hung up on before and to clarify my own thinking about the citation in question. Now I feel much better prepared to tackle the next one <grin>.

Linda

Submitted byChicago Charleson Sat, 06/07/2014 - 20:04

There is an easier way to link directly to a page in Google Books. For the example you've provided, the link is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C&pg=PA808#v=onepage&q&f=false

To use this on any Google Book that allows previews, note the string after "id=" (bg13QcMSsq8C). When you first open the preview, the url usually follows this with "&printsec=frontcover&dq=". Nearly at the end of the really long url you'll find "#v=onepage&" and at the very end, "f=false". 

To create the link to a specific page that still allows browsing to previous and subsequent pages, it's important to include "#v=onepage&f=false" at the end of the url. To specify which page to display, just add "&pg=PA#" after the "id=" string, replacing "#" with the page number you want.

So, for your reference, start with:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C

add the page number:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C&pg=PA808

and close with the ability to view more than one page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C&pg=PA808#v=onepage&f=false

Forgive me if I've over-explained; I'm trying to be thorough.

While this seems to be reliable, I hate to mention that I recently encountered a book where Google Books changed the "id=" string for the book. I had to search for the book by name and update the "id=" string to get the reference to work.

I would cite the reference as follows:

Murphy, Beth (1994). "Indianapolis Star". In Bodenhamer, David J. & Barrows, Robert G.: Encyclopedia of Indianapolis. Indiana University Press. p. 808. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://books.google.com/books?id=bg13QcMSsq8C&pg=PA808#v=onepage&f=false. 

Note that the major work, the encyclopedia, is italicized but the article is in quotation marks as a minor work within the major work, and yes, include "in" to indicate the relationship between the two. The date goes in parentheses after the author name; in the event there isn't an author, it follows the article title in parentheses. You needn't include the page range. (I prefer names in last, first order; this isn't strictly necessary.) You could add ", eds." after the name of the second editor, but by using "In", it's understood that these are the editors. You may also leave off the ampersand and replace it with a semicolon after the first editor's name, followed by a space, then the second editor's name. I prefer "Retrieved [date] from"; "Accessed [date] at" works just as well. There are periods after the author and date; the name of the article, the name of the work, the page number, and at the end of the citation.

Hope you find this helpful; I know it's a rather old post.

~ Charles

Quick note I left out.

Place of publication is important, but only if it's not obvious; in this instance, including the name of the publisher should be sufficient.

Chicago Charles,

Thanks for sharing your perspectives and your analysis of how Google Books creates it long-string URLs. While several of your suggestions about citation-essentials do go counter-grain to the basic principles laid out in EE  (and other standard guides for humanities-style citations), we all learn from sharing ideas. 

 

Thanks very much, Chicago Charles, for explaining how to tweak a Google Books URL in order to access a particular page that may not otherwise be available directly if the preview is limited to only certain pages. A great tip to add to my toolbox! However when I tried your suggestion, I found that, while I was able to go directly to the desired page and scroll backwards and forwards from it, I still encountered occasional messages as I scrolled, saying either that a particular page was unavailable for preview or that I'd reached the preview limit (for number of pages accessed)--a potential problem in the case of citations to multiple pages.

I'm not sufficiently tech-savvy to know whether the URL tweaking you suggest results in the kind of "on the fly" URL referred to previously in this thread. If it does, using it might not allow a reader to access the page, while providing the search terms--awkward as that may be--does enable future readers to view the page. Perhaps there's a time and place for both approaches.

Linda

For certain, Linda, researchers need many tools. While none of us would want to hack beyond the reasonable limits for copyrighted books—based on the agreement that Google has reached with authors and publishers—there are times that it is difficult to navigate from one snippet to another without triggering our limit.