The first thoughts I have are these:

If you have Instant Text or use the suggestion window in Shorthand, it's not too important whether longer is better or not. What I mean is, you don't have to type the whole abbreviation in the first place!

All I know is, I think that sometimes, longer is better. As you get larger and larger glossaries or dictionaries with loads of entries, no matter what, you are going to run into conflicts, you are! Here's a simple example:

otlul = of the left upper lobe
otlul = of the left upper lid

Now if you transcribe mainly Pulmonary and never do Ophthalmology, who cares. But if you do acute care with a zillion and one docs..... arrrgh! It's obvious, you say, make that "otlulobe" and "otlulid." You wouldn't have to type the whole thing with IT, but you'd type the "o" or the "i" and have less chance of the dreaded "expander boo-boo."

If I make right parietal lobe "rpl," well, I have a ton of entries that come up with rpl, and I won't even see it. But if I make it rplobe, and then I type rplo, it comes up all by itself. Besides, ending all lobe entries with lobe makes it a system that one will not forget. And heck, if you don't have a visual expander.......! I mean, come on!

What would you tell a new MT to do when building their abbreviations? I guess I'd say that no matter what program you use, a system that you really think through and that also avoids conflicts is the best way to go. Don't just throw them in willy-nilly. Part of the Instant Text appeal is that you don't have to memorize and that you can have same shorts for different entries, and trust me, I don't disagree that it's cool, it comes into play for me often. No, I wouldn't want to give that up! But I still prefer a system that is more likely to pull up an expansion by itself, rather than having bunches of similar shorts and having to visually scan the advisories.

I'm just thinking aloud! I hope you all will think with me!

I agree with your slightly longer shorts. It never ceases to amaze me how many suggestions I take away from this board.

I am not sure if this will help anyone besides myself, but here goes. I have had IT for about 6 months. My previous list of shorts was made compatible by the IT staff. I had used that list for about 9 years so most were imprinted on my brain.

Now that we can use the same abbreviation for several phrases, it is easy to make the dreaded typo. Since I had used "itp" for "in the past" for years, and wanted itp to also stand for "if the patient" I now add a 2 (itp2) so the first suggestion that comes up is "in the past" followed by "if the patient". (this sounds pretty confusing when I try to type it out-does it make sense??)

Over time, I am going to try to incorporate Harrie's new tip of making a longer short, but for the time being, adding the 2 does help me.

I definitely agree that longer shorts are better. When I started, it seemed counterproductive to make my short forms longer, but now I wouldn't use short shorts! For me, the fact that with IT you can shorten the short forms was a HUGE milestone for me to understand.

For my system, I use the aaabcz format, but I end up with duplicates. Backing up to get the right entry really throws me off, so I just add the distinguishing characters or words to the end of the duplicate entries.

For example, my general shortcut system produced these duplicates:
abothe = and benefits of the
abothe = anterior border of the

I changed them to
abothebenefits = and benefits of the
abotheborder = anterior border of the

At first glance it looks more complicated, but since you can abbreviate the shortcuts, it's easier! Now, I can use my system without having to memorize anything, and when duplicates come up, I can just type a character or two from the phrase itself to choose the right phrase. I tried adding a number behind the duplicate entries, but that just wasn't intuitive for me.

Great thread, Harrie! I'm still a newbie and always looking for suggestions, so I'll be watching this thread, for sure!

-sono_io

Me, too! That's why I loved Barb Grow's system so much from the moment I first saw it. If I have to scan a pick list, I get distracted, and that wastes more time than the extra keystroke or two it would take to automatically get to where I need to be.

Now, if producitivity were not an issue, though, it could be a helpful thing at times to have a pick list.

Hmm, I would have changed them to andbot (or andbenot) and antbot (or antborot). Would you mind explaining your logic in having the first parts of these abbvs identical and then backpedalling to get to a previous word?

Oh Lori, I was a huge fan of using numbers to differentiate for many years. I still use them. They worked great for me in Shorthand, especially. In IT, I will make such a short every now and then, but I don't do it too often, reason being I've found sometimes they won't work; instead, an entry in the advisory that I don't want will get chosen. Not all the time, only some of the time! IT staff has explained this many a time, and I still find it hard to wrap my mind around exactly what is happening, LOL. But since I know it does happen, yeah, I usually choose letters now to end an abbreviation with. It's so funny (forgive me if you've read this before from me) - but in spite of my saying the above, ending with numbers definitely does work. I mean, a lot of my drug glossary is based on that, lex10 for Lexapro 10 mg, ati05 for Ativan 0.5 mg, for instance. They work just fine! And yet I've made lists, that I've even posted on the board, for sodium, potassium, chloride, etc., and in some of those cases, found that if I had two letters and the number, they wouldn't come up; if I changed it to three letters and the value, they would, just fine! I don't have a mathematical mind and like I said, I can't follow it that well!

Sono, I know completely what you're saying. I still like short ones when they are hunky-dory, but yeah, the absolute only downside to what you do is the little bit of extra time in creating the short. (What, 0.2 seconds)? Cyber, I know you aren't an IT user, and I think you have to be one to understand Sono's system - yeah, it looks odd, but there is no way she's ever actually typing out all of her shorts! Just as she says, she can use the Skip Ahead feature of IT, which really pays, and in fact, the longer the short, the easier to use that feature! It's really great! (Naw, I'm not trying to convert you to IT)!

I'm dying to give Barb Grow's system a whirl, but I haven't yet! I just feel like, I already have such a huge glossary, and how will I know which ones I'm going to start using that system with, LOL. I already know I want to use it for "into" phrases versus "in," though, just haven't gotten around to it. And "within" versus "with" is another thought. I'll see where I can go with it and report back, too!

Oh! Forgot about scanning lists! I have to admit, I adore it! I'd kill myself without those visuals, LOL! But yes, scanning a pick list or advisory with a few entries is different from scanning one with tons of possibilities. That's part of why longer may be "better!"

Well, Harrie probably described it better than I can, but I'll try. If, for example, I had the entries you mentioned (anbot and antbot), it looks simple when you just see the two entries alone here, but it gets too complicated (for my brain, anyway) to have to remember them while I'm transcribing. With my system of longer short forms, I just always know (so I don't have to stop and think, LOL!) that all my phrases ar the same format - AAA-ABCZ (first letter of each word and the first, second, third, and last letters of the last word).

When I'm transcribing, if I want to get the phrase, "anterior border of the" I start to type "abothe." This gives me several duplicate phrases. Drats! Backspacing, for me, throws off my rhythm, since I have to think about how far to backspace, and then what to type to get the right entry. Instead, when I use "abothe," it might give me three or four entries, and it's easy for me to recognize that the phrase I want is the one containing "anterior" so I just the abcz form of anterior, and up pops my entry! It sounds so complicated as I'm describing it here, but it really seems simple and intuitive when I'm actually using it! Of course, sometimes I just arrow down instead, but I like to increase my odds of getting the right expansion without too much thought!

Of course our brains and eyes and fingers may not all work the same way (and sometimes mine don't even seem to work the same from day to day!! ), and that's the wonderful thing about IT - having options.

Is this clear as mud now? I'm starting to confuse myself.

-sono_io