A recent tip, "whodidwhat.htm" discussed the classification of biographies. About the classification of the biography of a Trappist monk, we said:

However, regarding the specific case of a biography of a Trappist monk, you cannot simply add 092 to 271.125, the number for Trappists. The footnote at 271.125 tells you to add as instructed under 271. There is a special provision in the add table at 271 that drops the 9 from the subdivisions of standard subdivision 09. How is this indicated? Note that the first line of the add table is "001-008 Standard subdivisions." The absence of --09 offers a clue that you need to look further. Quite often --09 is regular even when standard subdivisions --01-08 have an extra zero, as they do here. But the 271 table is unusual: Not only is there no extra zero for the --09, but in the last line of the table, the number is shortened further. Instead of the usual 09 there, you find 01-09, and are told to add to base number 0 notation 1-9 from Table 2. Therefore, wherever this add table applies, you use notation 02 rather than --092 for biography, e.g., 271.12502 for the biography of a Trappist monk. The other standard subdivisions require an extra zero wherever the footnote applies, e.g., 271.125005 for a periodical on the Trappists.

After the appearance of that tip, we were asked two very good questions: Where in Table 2 was the notation 02 referred to, and why aren't add instructions for biography presented separately from add instructions for geography in Dewey?

These questions go right to the heart of one of the basic dilemmas of editing, which is the clarity of expression versus the clutter of explicit detail. We often find that clutter is the enemy of clarity, because it is so easy to hide things in plain sight. A vital detail can often be lost in a profusion of notes.

In the case of Table 2, we feel constrained to assume that our users are familiar with its basic outlines. Users who have once been talked through the number-building procedure for Table 2 should realize that the words in the headings under which it will be used provide a code to the specific parts of the table that are applicable.

There are three parts to the table: historical, geographic, and persons treatment. At many places you have all three, e.g., at 364.9. The heading there, "Historical, geographic, persons treatment of crime and its alleviation," signals that the whole table will be used. The add instruction begins, "Add to base number 364.9 notation 01-9 from Table 2 . . ." That instruction covers historical treatment (notation 01-05 from the Table 2), geographical treatment (notation 1 and 3-9), and persons treatment (notation 2.)

If one of the three words is left out of a given heading, that part of Table 2 is not used. That is the case in the add table at 271. The heading for 01-09 in this add table is simply "Geographical and persons treatment." We believe that this heading should make clear that historical treatment is not a part of the span, but that persons treatment is.

We don't think that it would make it any clearer to add subordinate entries for geographical and persons treatment. We would need three new entries, for 01 (area 1 for areas in general), 02 (persons treatment 2) and 03-09 (3-9 for specific areas). Each entry would require add instructions leading users back to parts of Table 2. (Under notation 02 we might need a special development for persons treatment, e.g., 022 for collective persons treatment.) While possibly one user in a thousand would find that display helpful the first time or two they met it, even this one would soon join the majority of users who would find it useless clutter. If we put the development here, it would be logical to do so at hundreds of other places, where most users would be likely to be put off by it.

We value all comments from users, and especially questions such as these, because as editors we often find ourselves taking for granted features of the Classification that users do not. We may be too close to see some of the problems. We keep looking over our instructions when people inquire about them, and often enough add a word or two here, or change the wording there. On occasion we will recast a whole presentation. We seek solutions that highlight essential instructions, but do not bury you in trees that wind up obscuring the forest.

Last revised: 13 November 2003