"Footnotes or Endnotes?" Topic

I've recently finished Eric J. Wittenberg and Scott L. Mingus' Second Winchester published by Savas Beatie. Now I'm reading Timothy B. Smith's Grant Invades Tennessee by University Press of Kansas.

The Savas Beatie book has footnotes on each page. This appears to be a growing trend especially since SB has become a major player in the last 10 years. The University Press has endnotes at the end of the book.

I still prefer endnotes at the end of the book. I like reading complete pages of text. I find footnotes distracting. Sometimes there can be a large footnote that takes up 2/3 of the page, leaving 1/3 or less of text. I've even seen a photo at the top, one or two lines of text,and then footnotes at the bottom.

Which do you prefer as a reader?

Footnotes, usually. I like to know what the source is for a statement without having to flick back and forth all the time.

Notes at the end of each chapter are the worst possible compromise; you never quite know where you are.

I like endnotes for the same reason as Cleburne – I find footnotes a bit distracting, especially when there are lots of them; I am just finishing Team of Rivals by Doris Goodwin and if you put the endnotes at the bottom of the pages you would have some pretty short pages

Plus that is the way everything is done at work so I am used to it

I prefer endnotes. Footnotes are too distracting and I find I lose the narrative thread.

I prefer footnotes.

Footnotes.

Footnotes here. I like to see the sources and read the minutia on the same page I am reading the text.

Footnotes, for all the previously mentioned reasons. H

Footnotes, unless they are routinely longer than the text. Worst of all is when the text is mainly concerned with proving that professor so-and-so cohabits with pigs, etc.

Footnotes – far easier to refer to or ignore (I get quite irritated looking for an end note and finding that it tells me something I didn't need to read).

If the notes are strictly the source of the citation, I prefer end notes. If, on the other hand, the notes contain additional information, I'd like them as footnotes

Another vote for footnotes.

I'm with Rich--supplemental information at the bottom of the page, proof you didn't invent the whole thing at the end of the book. If, as vtsaogames mentions, it's an argument with another professional, an appendix or bibliographic essay is in order.

Footnotes

I'm with Gurkhan: footnotes, and the worst is the system of notes at the end of each chapter.

I also prefer to avoid bibliography in brackets in the main text (it's commonplace), but refer to it exclusively in the footnotes.

Footnotes

Footnotes – since 90% or more are just reference to source material that could be skipped or put into endnotes.

Depends on what I'm reading, the volume of notes, and the importance of the notes. As a lawyer, I am used to seeing articles that literally have one sentence at the top of a page, and an entire page of footnotes. However, that is the convention for technical or scholarly articles. I like the format and expect to see it in that type of article.

As a general rule for other types of reading, if the note is very important (it explains something about the text that is necessary to understanding it, and may not be known to the intended audience), I want a footnote. If the article is short, like a magazine, I am fine with endnotes. In most other instances, I prefer endnotes. For pleasure reading (histories, battle accounts, the stuff that might not seem like fun to people who aren't in TMP), I'm usually more interested in a well-written narrative, than I am with the author's exact source. Therefore, I would rather have endnotes that I could reference later if I am so inclined, especially for a list of sources.

As a general rule, for works that are not scholarly or technical, if the author feels that something deserves a footnote, then maybe the information should be worked into the body of the text.

In my books I put the endnotes after each chapter. Notes at the back of the book, I think, are too hard to find -- First you have to check to see which chapter you're reading before you can go find the note.

The vast majority of my notes are just to show where I got a quote; a few are to show where I got a fact. My feeling is, if the information is pertinent and interesting, it should be in the text; if it ain't, I probably don't need it.

Endnotes are my preference. Footnotes can be distracting. I like to read the endnotes when I pick up a book to read where I left off.

It depends on the propensity of the author to continue additional narrative as part of the notes. If only sources are listed, with no additional narrative, I prefer endnotes. But if more commentary is included with the notes, I prefer footnotes. Nothing irritates me more than to be flipping back and forth to get "all the story".

But, it should be pointed out that commentary included with notes is a very sloppy way to write (I am guilty, but have repented). If you have more to say after writing the book, then do another edit and include all of your points in the main text. Leave notes to sources only.

I would make a sole exception, of commentary about the sources themselves being allowed in the notes. In other words, there really should not be any "notes" relevant to the text at all. And the term "footnotes" or "endnotes" should undergo a much wanted demise. "Sources" would be a good replacement, and they should always be listed in the back, i.e. at the end of the book………..

Footnotes for me.

Footnotes, although they don't appear as common.

I'm one who finds it annoying going back and forth. Also I have terrible habit of reading on once I've identified the note so if there's a page or more I'm inclined to get ahead of the chapter notation before I can stop myself.

Footnotes

Many authors use notes not only to indicate their sources but also to report additional information that is not necessarily relevant to the main theme of the book. Putting those notes at the end of the book buries this information. For authors who follow this practice I prefer footnotes over end notes. If the author does not use footnotes, then having the notes at the end of the chapter still increases the likelihood that I will see them before moving on to the next chapter. When the notes are at the end of the book I usually only look at them when I specifically want to find out the author's source for information.

Footnotes. I find chapter and end notes more distracting and less used.

Thanks for all the responses. Interesting points of view. I think footnotes are winning. More people want information readily within view as opposed to a clean page. I guess I can understand that considering most of us are information/fact junkies.

I think that most professional historians would prefer footnotes in their books, given the choice, but publishers are the ones who make that decision. In the pre-digital era it was far cheaper to produce a book with endnotes instead of footnotes, and I would guess that there is still a substantial difference in cost.

Footnotes.

No preference, actually. I feel comfortable with both.

Footnotes.

Happy with either

Footnotes.

Footnotes, although not as common as they used to be. I like being able to easily check the sources or additional info provided.

Footnotes on each page. John Miller

Footnotes

Considering how many historical studies have NO footnotes and only an abbreviated Bibliography, like Dave M, I am happy to see either.

Footnotes, so I can consult them immediately without turning pages.

Footnotes

And, as one of the authors mentioned at the start of this thread, footnotes, for sure. I like to give extra information that supplements the text on the same page.

I find endnotes to be very frustrating. So much of the time, the endnotes are not worth the time flipping to. And I seem to only flip to the ones that are not helpful. Footnotes are so good because you know immediately if they are worthwhile. Having said that, my Kindle is really helpful in that regard. Just click on the note number and the note shows up.

Do folks here ever look up the source referenced in the footnotes or end notes?

[of the two I prefer footnotes for the reasons mentioned]

Do folks here ever look up the source referenced in the footnotes or end notes?

Yes. I also review the bibliography and the end notes if present, prior to purchasing a book in the flesh. Online it's harder.

Foot notes, yes I should be used to jumping backwards and forwards by now, but I do find it far easier to just read at the bottom of the page.

Depends

Parenthetical footnotes should be on the bottom of the page. Simple citation of sources should be in end notes.

I have a fetish for footnotes.