Article
November 20, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Making the Index Invisible

So the 18th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style dropped in September. I have to admit I have not bought a copy. While I think their recommendations are solid, I find I don’t use it very much, since I only index and not edit. But I do know some editors who are very excited about the new edition, and there has been chatter among indexers as well on the changes to the chapter on indexing.

The main change in regards to indexing is 15.66, which states:

Chicago now prefers the word-by-word system of alphabetization over the letter-by-letter system (but will accept either in a well-prepared index).

 

I think this change makes sense.

I personally most notice the difference in sorting when indexing Asian studies books, where I tend to see a lot of surnames like Chen, Kim, and Liu. Being so short, these names often get mixed up with other headings when sorted letter-by-letter, whereas I think the index is easier to scan if all of the surnames are sorted together. I’ve also received instructions from a scholarly press to sort the index letter-by-letter except for the names, which the press wants force-sorted word-by-word. Which begs the question: why not sort the entire index word-by-word?

For example, here is a comparison of letter-by-letter compared to word-by-word.

Letter-by-letter sorting
Liang Ji
Liang Qichao
Libailiu (Saturday)
Li Boyuan
Li Chen
Life Weekly
Lin Meijing
Li Shirui
List, Friedrich
Liu Denghan
Liu Jiang
Liu, Jianmei
Liu, Lydia
Liushou nüshi (Those Left Behind; film)
Liuxuesheng (overseas Chinese students)
Liu Yiqing
Li Yuanhong
 
Word-by-word sorting
Li Boyuan
Li Chen
Li Shirui
Li Yuanhong
Liang Ji
Liang Qichao
Libailiu (Saturday)
Life Weekly
Lin Meijing
List, Friedrich
Liu Denghan
Liu Jiang
Liu, Jianmei
Liu, Lydia
Liu Yiqing
Liushou nüshi (Those Left Behind; film)
Liuxuesheng (overseas Chinese students)
 

The word-by-word sorting, for me, is a lot easier to scan and parse when like surnames are grouped together, and when names are sorted together above other terms. It makes me confident that I am seeing all of the names present, rather than being concerned that I am missing a name that is buried below.

Also note that the Liu names are sorted according to the clarified 15.85, which states:

When the same family name is inverted for one person but not for another (e.g., “Li Jinghan” and “Li, Lillian”), the names may be listed together and alphabetized by first names regardless of the comma.

 

This also makes a lot of sense and has been my practice for a long time. By ignoring the comma, the second portion of the name is treated equally for all names, whereas if the comma is taken into account, all the names with commas sort to the top and may cause some names to appear out of order. For example,

Liu, Jianmei, 48
Liu, Lydia, 91
Liu Denghan, 148n6
Liu Jiang, 105
Liu Yiqing, 27, 144n13
 

For another interesting comparison, as a colleague pointed out, try looking for the sorting differences in the indexes between the 17th and 18th editions of the CMOS. And if you’d like to see a full list of the changes to the indexing chapter in CMOS 18,see here.

So will I now unilaterally switch to word-by-word sorting for all of my clients who request that the index follows CMOS? I don’t think so, unless I think that the index will really benefit. I think it is better if I first ask my clients if they want to change, so we are both on the same page and I am not springing a surprise on them. And, to be honest, for most indexes I don’t think that the difference between word-by-word and letter-by-letter sorting will be that noticeable.

This brings me to my larger point, which is that the mechanics of a well written index should be invisible to the user. I doubt that any reader will browse the index and think, “I wonder what the alphabetical sort is?” That is not the reader’s concern. What the reader cares about is quickly finding information.

To facilitate finding information, every aspect of the index needs to work together. This includes the sorting, the structure, term selection, phrasing, and cross-references. When it works, the reader shouldn’t notice how the index works because the reader is too busy digging into the book. When the index does not work—that is the point when the reader is pulled out of the index and is frustrated at their inability to access the information they want. The reader may not be able to articulate whythe index is not working, but something about the contents and mechanics of the index is wrong.

Bringing this back to sorting, for many indexes the difference will be negligible between letter-by-letter and word-by-word sorting. As CMOS states, they will accept either in a well-prepared index. For other books, like for me with Asian studies titles, the difference will be more pronounced.

When indexing, pay attention to when the difference matters. Make decisions based on what will make the user experience the most seamless. Pay attention to how the different elements of the index fit together. Striving to make the index invisible may be an odd way to think about indexing, but to be invisible means that the index works, which is what we ultimately want for our readers.

Article
November 5, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Paying Attention to Terminology

I am writing today about some decisions that I needed to make on a recent index. In the grand scheme of the index, these decisions only affected a few entries. I am tempted to brush these off as not very important and not worth discussing. Yet much of indexing is about paying attention to the details without getting lost in the details. And I think this is a unique situation that illustrates an important point about term selection. At least, it made me sit up and think carefully as I was working.

A good index encapsulates two different goals, which can sometimes seem like they are in opposition to each other. The index needs to be both a reflection of what the author has written and be an attempt to clearly communicate with the reader. Lose one of these aspects, and the index ceases to function.

Term selection is key to achieving both of these goals. The terms used in the index need to both match the text and how the reader is likely to search. Ideally the author and the reader are in alignment, but sometimes the author uses different language than what the reader might expect. In those situations, the index may need to bridge the gap.

I recently ran into this issue when writing the index for Saint Paul the Pharisee: Jewish Apostle to All Nations, by Father Stephen De Young (Ancient Faith Publishing, 2024).

If you are familiar with Christianity, the title may be a hint that the author is taking a different tact with terminology. While Paul was a pharisee prior to his conversion, he is now more commonly known as the Apostle Paul, or Paul the Apostle. Yet here Fr. Stephen is emphasizing Paul’s Jewishness.

In the book’s Introduction, Fr. Stephen addresses this question of terminology:

Throughout this book, I have deliberately eschewed certain language. This language is certainly acceptable and has become the usual language of the Church. However, familiar terminology can sometimes be misleading. By using the word Messiah instead of Christ, community instead of church, or Torah instead of law, I hope to unsettle commonly held notions and help the reader reassess Paul in his historical context, rather than project the experience of present-day Christians into the past.

 

This shift in terminology also extends to names, which is where I noticed the biggest difference in regards to the index.

In addition to “Paul the Pharisee,” Fr. Stephen also frequently refers to Paul by his former name, Saul of Tarsus. Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth,” rather than Jesus Christ. A figure such as the Apostle John, also known as John the Evangelist, John the Theologian, or John the Divine, is here referred to as John, the son of Zebedee. None of these names are incorrect, but they are names that are less commonly used. They support the author’s focus on Paul and the early Church’s Jewish context and alerts readers that the author is taking a different approach.

From an indexing standpoint, do I follow Fr. Stephen’s lead? By using these names, I would provide continuity with the text and reinforce the point that Fr. Stephen is trying to make. But will readers still recognize these names in the index, outside of the context of the text? I am not helping anyone if I include names and terms that readers are unlikely to recognize.

In the end, I decided to lean into the author’s terminology. Christians form the primary audience for this book and, I assume, are familiar enough with with these Biblical figures, even if these are not the names typically used.

Paul I simply indexed as “Paul.” As the subject of the book, I decided a gloss was unnecessary. I also included a See cross-reference from Saul of Tarsus, for any readers looking under Saul and to keep all discussions of Saul/Paul in a single array.

I indexed Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth,” with a subheading for “as Messiah,” to reflect how the author discusses Jesus. I indexed the other Biblical figures as is (“Peter,” “Silas,” “Timothy,’ etc…) except for when a gloss or tag was needed to disambiguate (for example, “James, brother of the Lord’ and “James, son of Zebedee”). This is again following the author’s approach and trusting that readers will recognize these names.

I did, however, include glosses for several of the provinces and cities discussed, such as “Achaia (province)” and “Perge (city),” especially the less well-known places (I didn’t include glosses for cities like Athens and Rome). This may not have been necessary, but I personally like knowing where things are and what things are, so as a reader I would have appreciated the differentiation.

As I wrote at the beginning, these names form a small proportion of the overall index. Was it really worth spending time considering how best to balance the author’s approach versus reader expectations? There are plenty of other discussions in the book, such as discussions about Paul’s missionary journeys, the history of the early Church, and theological issues that Paul addresses in his epistles, that I also wanted to get right.

And yet names matter and terminology matters. The index would have presented a different message if I had used more conventional names for these figures and the index would have appeared disjointed from the text. Writing a good index is often about paying attention to the details so that the entire index works together as a whole and in conjunction with both the text and readers. The trick is to see both the details and the whole. It can be easy to lose sight of the big picture.

For this book, while the author opted to shift the terminology to make a point, I decided that most readers would still be able to follow along in the index. I didn’t need to include much in the way of signposts and clarifications. But for other books, extensive use of cross-references and glosses may be necessary. While reflecting the text and the author’s intentions, the index also needs to be responsive to readers. Thankfully, we have tools to bridge that gap.

The first step, though, is paying attention to the language used by the author. The next step is considering the audience. Do the two match? From here you can select terms and write an index that is clear and recognizable to all.

Article
October 22, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When Potential Clients Ghost Me

Fall has definitely arrived here in Edmonton. Leaves are turning a beautiful golden yellow and the temperature at night is starting to dip below freezing. This year this also seems to be the season for an uptick in queries to index academic books, most of them ready for indexing in December. I’m not sure why this is the case. I find queries can ebb and flow throughout the year, though I don’t think publishing seasons are as important for academic publishing as it is for trade. In any case, I’ve been responding to a lot of emails.

I’ve also noticed a number of authors who seem to be ghosting me. I respond to their queries, sent them an estimate, and never hear from them again.

This is actually good, from my perspective. It means I don’t have to say no and that time slot is kept open for someone who does want to work with me. I am receiving more offers than I can accept, so while I do appreciate a response to inform me that the author is choosing to work with someone else, I don’t mind when potential clients filter themselves out.

I assume some authors simply forget to respond because they are busy. I’ve certainly done that. But why are potential clients choosing not to hire me? Am I doing something wrong in how I present myself, or am I actually doing something right? While I don’t know for sure, I have a few guesses based on the interactions I do have. I think there are two main reasons why I get ghosted, plus four additional reasons why I may not get the job. 

  • I’m too expensive. Especially for authors paying out of pocket. I am sympathetic to authors on a budget. I know that indexing can be expensive and that I am not the cheapest indexer around. I also don’t want to be the cheapest. I believe that the quality of my work and my years of experience is worth something. I am also mindful that I am freelancing in order to earn a sustainable income. So yes, I suspect that I am too expensive for some authors, and I’m okay with that. I see my pricing as a filter, because I know while some potential clients will find my quotes too high, others will find my quotes acceptable.
  • The client doesn’t value or understand what indexing entails. This is also related to price, though not because the client is unable to pay. I sometimes get the sense, from what the potential client writes in their query or the questions they ask, that they see indexing as data entry. They don’t consider all of the analysis, skill, and time that goes into interpreting the text, selecting terms, and structuring the index and arrays. So my quote seems outrageously high for what, to them, seems like a simple and menial task. It is frustrating when potential clients don’t value or understand what it is I do, but I also don’t want to waste my time writing a terrible index to make a low price worthwhile. If the client and I can’t agree on the value of the index, then we are better off going our separate ways.

Those are the two main reasons why I think I get ghosted. But projects can also fall through for other ordinary and legitimate reasons. Here are four common ones I see.

  • Another indexer responds first. Some authors contact multiple indexers and seem to choose the first indexer who replies. While this is incentive to reply quickly, I also find email incredibly distracting, so I’m okay losing out on the occasional project if it means I can carve out uninterrupted time to work.
  • Going with a firmer yes. Some authors don’t have firm dates yet for the index when they contact me. This makes it difficult for me to give a firm yes, especially if my schedule is filling up and I’m concerned about overbooking. Whereas another indexer may have a freer schedule or more flexibility. Which I understand and no hard feelings from me. 
  • An embedded index is needed. I don’t write embedded indexes, so once I realize what they need (which the author doesn’t always realize themselves), I need to reply and decline.
  • My schedule is full. Sometimes I simply don’t have room and I need to say no. 

It still stings when I get rejected or ghosted by a potential client. There is a hit of validation when schedules align and the client decides to accept my quote. But I also recognize that I am in a privileged position. As someone running a one-person business, there is a limit to how many indexes I can write per month. The question becomes: how can I filter the offers and queries to find the best clients and projects to work with?

Part of the answer is pricing, as I already discussed. I am looking for clients with larger budgets.  Marketing—the information I put out about myself—is also important. Can I find projects and clients which align with my own interests? Cultivating long-term relationships with certain publishers and editors is also important to me, as I enjoy their books and they have provided a lot of work over the years.

If you are an experienced indexer and feel like you are drowning in work and queries, then maybe it is time to raise your prices. Some clients may leave, and that’s okay because you can’t serve everyone. Saying no to a potential client, or having a potential client say no to you, can sometimes be the best outcome because it leaves room for a better client and project to come along. Who do you most want to work with? Focus on attracting and serving those clients. 

If you are a newer indexer, what I am writing today may seem irrelevant. I remember being a new indexer with an empty schedule waiting for anyone to get in touch with any project. But as your experience and reputation grows, your schedule should begin filling up too and you will hopefully reach the point where you will need to turn down work. It helps to be prepared for that day, even if you just make a note at the back of your mind that that day is coming. Again, who do you want to work with? How can you adjust your pricing? A no to one project means a yes to something else. 

Article
October 8, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

My Index Editing Process

Last time I wrote about reading like an indexer and what it is I do and look for when reading a text and writing the rough draft of an index. Today I’d like to reflect on my editing process.

A few months ago I started tracking my time when I index. I had previously done so, but not effectively and I eventually gave up. This time, I’ve created a new system and a new spreadsheet that is much easier to use, and I am a lot happier with the results.

One of my insights so far is that I spend about an equal amount of time drafting and editing. I have to admit that this surprised me. I knew that editing took up a fair amount of time, but I didn’t realize that the time spent is often about 50/50. For some indexes, I actually spend a little more time editing, making the time split closer to 45/55 or even 40/60.

Reflecting further on my process, I tend to spread drafting the index over 3-6 days, depending on the length of the book. Whereas I tend to edit within 2-3 days. When drafting, I am learning what the book is about. When editing, I am fully immersed in the index and I treat it more like a sprint. It probably also helps that by the time I get to editing, the deadline is looming.

I’m realizing that I also tend to draft quickly. I do try to write a fairly clean draft, taking into account context, clarity, and relevance, as I previously discussed. I believe in trying to set myself up for an easier edit. But I also know that this is not my final draft and that some things won’t become clear until I’ve read the whole book, and so I also try to keep moving.

Editing an index, for me, is both seeing the index as a whole and going through the index line by line. I like to give myself space between drafting and editing, which usually means sleeping on the draft and beginning to edit the next day. This helps to give me some distance so I can more clearly see the whole index with fresh eyes.

I usually begin by skimming the index, making note of the larger arrays for the metatopic and supermain discussions. This reminds me of the structure I am aiming for, and is a chance to consider if I want to make any major changes. I then start at the top of the index and work my way down, line by line. I know some indexers edit using multiple passes, each pass looking at a different element. I think I would go utterly cross-eyed and unable to make sense of the index if I tried multiple passes. Instead, my goal is to fully edit the array in front of me before I move on to the next. This may mean jumping around the index to also edit related arrays, and sometimes I will go back to re-edit an array if I change my approach, but generally speaking, I systematically move through the index.

With each array, I am first of all looking for clarity. Does the main heading and any subheadings make sense? If there are subheadings, I look to see if any can be combined or reworded, or if subheadings need to be added for unruly locators. I consider if anything needs to be double posted, and check to make sure that is done properly. I consider and check cross-references. I investigate any notes I may have left for myself. I also spot-check a few locators to make sure I understood the text properly. I may also run a quick search of the PDF to see if I missed any references. I don’t check every locator, which I think would be very time-consuming—to a certain extent, I need to trust that my drafting process was thorough and accurate—but these spot checks do provide peace of mind and I do sometimes find errors.

Reviewing arrays with no subheadings is usually quick, unless I’ve left a note for myself or I decide to spot check. Arrays with subheadings take more time. If an arrays has 20+ subheadings, I may spend as much as twenty or more minutes making sure that the array is in order. I often find the larger the book, the larger the index, the more subheadings there will be, and the longer editing will take.

Considering my process, I do wonder if I can shave off time. I could spot check a little less, especially for simple arrays with no subheadings, trusting that I picked up what was necessary. I can also pay more attention, when drafting, to larger arrays, so that editing them isn’t so onerous. I could also explore using more macros and patterns for batching tasks such as double-posting or removing subheadings. What I like about my process, though, is that it is thorough and I can clearly see what is completed and what is still to come. Editing line by line helps to keep my thoughts in order.

Other Approaches to Editing

My approach to editing is not the only approach, of course. I’ve mentioned making multiple passes. I also know of indexers who do a quick edit at the end of each day, while drafting, so that the draft is cleaner. I’ve also heard indexers who say that they do such a thorough job drafting that the editing process only takes them a couple of hours. I don’t know how that works for them. I seem to need a lengthier editing process for the index to gel and come together. And that’s okay. We are all different. What matters is that you find a process that works for you.

I find it interesting to hear how others index, even if it is not something I would do myself. I hope this glimpse into my process gives you something to think about.

Article
September 17, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Reading Like an Indexer

So you are sitting down to write an index. You scroll to the first page in the PDF, or, if you’ve printed out the proofs, you place the first page on the desk in front of you, and then…what? What is your thought process? How do you decide what entries to extract? How do you read?

Reading to index is different than reading to edit, reading to learn, or reading for pleasure. I think of reading to index as a process of disassembly. I try to identify how the author has written and structured the text, and I then pull apart all of those pieces, big or small, and reassemble them into the form of an index. This is very much an active reading, in which I am identifying, analyzing, and making decisions. 

I generally look for two types of information when I draft an index.

  • Specific details. These are names, places, companies, concepts, etc… that are explicitly mentioned and discussed. These are usually fairly obvious. If there are a lot of names or other such details, I may index a few pages, pick up these details, and then go back and re-read to make sure I also understand the larger discussion.
  • Broader topics. These range from the metatopic—what the whole book is about—to supermain and regular discussions—both themes spanning the book and what specific chapters or sections are about. It is important to have index entries which correspond to these broader discussions, and so in addition to picking up specific details, I try to also understand the big picture. These broader topics are also tied to the structure of the index, as I consider how best to reflect the book’s structure in the index, and as I anticipate that these large discussions will become large arrays, anchoring the index. Depending on the book, as mentioned, I may need to read a section two or more times to properly mine all relevant entries. 

Once I have identified the large and small pieces that the book is made of, I need to decide how to translate that into the index. Here are a few tips I find helpful to keep in mind.

  • Understand what you are reading. This may seem obvious, but I think it is worth stating. The temptation, at least for me, is to guess if I am unsure and to create an entry anyway. And sometimes guessing is the best I can do in that moment. I flag the entry for revisiting later and I move on. What can be more effective, though, is to read ahead a few pages until I do understand, and then go back and create the entry. It’s okay to be patient. Taking the time to understand can pay off later with better understanding of what comes next in the text and with less editing due to a stronger draft. 
  • Place the information in context. Are you looking at a specific detail or a broader topic? How does the detail or topic relate to other details or topics? Can this be turned into a subheading? Should it be double-posted? Is a cross-reference necessary? What other entries does this suggest? While subheadings, cross-references, and double-posts can all be revisited later, when editing the index, I like to start thinking about them while writing the rough draft. The information in the book is an interconnected web, which the index should reflect. So as part of your thought process, get in the habit of looking for these connections. 
  • Filter for relevance. In addition to understanding the larger context, also pay attention to relevance. Think about the audience before you begin writing the index. Consider how much space is available for the index. What should the index focus on? Sometimes I am not sure if an entry is relevant and so I pick it up anyway, labeling it for possible deletion later. But the more I can filter out now, the less I need to cut later. 
  • Communicate with clarity. This is especially true for subheadings. Make sure that readers understand what this entry means. Be concrete and, where relevant, link back to the larger context. You don’t want to leave readers guessing, nor do you want to leave yourself guessing when you come around again to edit.

All combined, this is a lot to do while reading and indexing. It can be difficult to identify both specific details and larger discussions, while also weighing relevance, and paying attention to the context, and thinking about related entries, and thinking about how best to phrase for clarity. Reading to index is a skill that takes practice.

Remember too that the rough draft does not need to be perfect. My drafts are certainly not perfect, and while I am thinking about all of this while drafting, I spend about an equal amount of time editing. 

How you read is up to you. I tend to start reading and I type entries into Cindex, the indexing software that I use, as the entries come to mind. Other indexers prefer to first mark up the proofs, identifying what is indexable and making notes for themselves, before they go back and type up the entries. There is no right or wrong approach, so long as you are paying attention to all aspects of the text, both big and small.

If you are newer to indexing, you may find marking up the proofs to be a good way to visualize or make concrete this thought process. I marked up proofs the first 3-4 years that I indexed, which in hindsight was necessary for me to engrain this way of reading. Once indexing started to become habit, I stopped marking up, though I still read ahead sometimes to better understand what the text is about. 

Writing an index is a unique way to interact with the text. It does require a shift in how you read and see the text. Once you make that shift, indexing becomes easier. 

Article
August 27, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

One Index or Multiple?

Today’s reflection is in response to a question I received through the feedback survey for my newsletter, Indexing Matters. Thank you very much for your question, and my thanks to everyone who took the time to provide feedback. Your thoughtful responses are very encouraging and have given me good ideas for what to write and focus on.

(And if you haven’t yet given feedback or asked a question about something that is puzzling you about indexing, and you would like to do so, the link to the survey is here. It is anonymous and only contains four questions.)

The question is:

I’m editor in chief for an international non profit publishing often complex niche academic topics…one of the big decisions is, should there be more than one index? Making a separate Scripture index for biblical topics makes sense, but when to make a separate name/place/botantical name index? Is it just by size/length? Having too many indexes seems it could be confusing for some readers.

This is an excellent question. It is more common in certain disciplines to include more than one index. I think the key, when deciding whether or not to include more than one index, is to figure out the underlying why. For that, I think there are two main factors to consider, in addition to discipline expectations. What is the purpose of the index? And, what is the scope of the index?

What is the Purpose of the Index?

For most indexes, the focus is on discussions. The reader should be able to go to the specified page and learn something of value and substance. Passing mentions are left out. Citations are also typically ignored. The index acts as a filter to provide relevant information to the reader.

In some cases, though, the goal is to instead pick up all mentions, including passing mentions and citations. A scripture or ancient sources index is a great example, as that is intended for readers to find every instance a chapter and verse is cited. Name indexes also tend to be focused on mentions, including citations. In these cases, subheadings are typically not used and long strings of locators are acceptable. The goal is to allow readers to see at a glance how often, and when, someone or something is referenced.

In terms of whether to include one index or multiple, think about the purpose of the index. If the goal is to provide a comprehensive road map to the discussions contained within the book, then a single index covering everything is probably the right choice. If there is an element for which you want to pick up all mentions and to provide a quick overview, then that is probably a good element to split out into its own index. This way each index can have its own purpose and the separation can also be a signal to readers to expect something different from each.

A good example are the two indexes for Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge: Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North America, by Nancy J. Turner (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014), which was indexed by François Trahan. François actually won the inaugural Ewart-Daveluy Award, from the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation, for these indexes. The first index is an “Index of Plant Species,” in which the plants are indexed by taxonomical names. There are no subheadings and readers can quickly see how often a plant is mentioned. The second index is a “General Index,” which is focused on discussions. In addition to concepts and other types of information, all of the plant species are double-posted in the General Index under their common names and, for those species extensively discussed, subheadings are used to guide readers in their search. These two indexes works well together because they gives readers a choice to search by either common or taxonomical name, and readers can decide if they want a quick overview of the number of references or if they want a more in-depth look at the discussions. If you are interested, the indexes can be viewed here.

What is the Scope of the Index?

Another consideration is to look at the scope of indexable material. A general index contains everything—all relevant names and subject matter. To sort and separate a general index by type of information is to potentially create a dozen or more indexes—for animals, plants, people, companies, concepts, court cases, trains, medical equipment, etc…—whatever makes sense for that book. Creating multiple indexes, each narrowly focused, is not practical and would probably confuse readers.

However, writing multiple indexes may make more sense if there are only two or three elements that you want to pick up. In this case, the two or three clearly defined indexes can be a way to signal to readers that this is it. Readers should not expect to find other types of information.

For example, in 2016 I indexed Exploring the Capital: An Architectural Guide to the Ottawa-Gatineau Region, by Andrew Waldron (Figure 1 Publishing). Two indexes were requested, one for buildings and one for designers, which covered people and architectural firms. Readers are offered two clear options for how to search. Another example is Hunters on the Track: Willian Penny and the Search for Franklin, by W. Gillies Ross (McGill-Queen’s University Press), which I indexed in 2019. In that case, the client did not have the budget for a full index but still wanted something. The press suggested two indexes, one for names and one for places. I suggested adding a third, for ships, as ships also seemed important to the narrative and Arctic exploration. So that is what we did: three indexes, no subheadings, focused on a quick overview of all people, places, and ships. Nothing else was indexed.

All that said, even if only two or three elements are picked up, a single index may still be the best choice. As I recently discussed, my index for To See What He Saw: J.E.H. MacDonald and the O’Hara Years, 1924-1932, by Stanley Munn and Patricia Cucman (Figure 1 Publishing, 2024), at the publisher’s request, only focused on paintings, people, and places. All three elements are contained within a single index. I think it still works, though, because there is not much else that is indexable. Readers are unlikely to be looking for anything else, and so the index isn’t contravening reader expectations by pretending to be more general than it actually is.

Discipline Conventions

As I mentioned at the beginning, it is common in certain disciplines to include multiple indexes, whether that is a scripture index in Biblical studies texts or a separate name index so readers can see who is cited. If you are aware of these conventions and expectations, then that can also be a good reason to follow suite. However, I suggest also asking yourself if there is a further underlying reason why multiple indexes makes sense. Do different elements in the book need to be handled differently in the index? Is everything being indexed or is the focus much narrower?

The goal, as always, is to make the index(es) user-friendly and to meet user expectations. It may be that following convention is the best way to meet those expectations, or it may be that the convention doesn’t really make sense for your purpose, in which case I would go ahead and write the index(es) that would be the most useful.

​

For the books I typically index, both trade and scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences, a single, general index focused on discussions is usually what is required and expected. With the exception of scripture indexes, I usually prefer to write a single index which includes everything. That said, multiple indexes are definitely an option. They can be another tool that you can use to both meet expectations and shape expectations, depending on what you want the indexes to accomplish.

Article
August 13, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Is AI Indexing Nearly Here?

No surprise, publishing continues to react and interact with artificial intelligence. A couple of colleagues recently raised AI on a couple of indexing email lists. I get the sense that many indexers are concerned about the potential for AI to replace us, or at least that publishers will believe that AI can replace a human-written, thoughtfully constructed index. I have to admit I also feel uncertain about what the future holds. I wrote about AI and indexing last year, and I think it is worth considering again. 

Is Indexing by AI Nearly Here?

One colleague flagged this article from The Scholarly Kitchen, “AI-Enabled Transformation of Information Objects Into Learning Objects,” by Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe. Hinchliffe reviews three new AI tools which purport to help readers access and understand academic writings. Of particular interest to indexers is what Hinchliffe writes about Papers AI Assistant: 

When exploring the functionality as a beta tester, I was curious how the results compared to my pre-AI tool practice of making heavy use of CTRL-F to locate keywords in lengthy texts. I found that, not only did the Papers AI save me a great deal of time by providing me with an overview annotated with links to specific sections of the text, it also often alerted me to places in the text where my topic of interest was conceptually discussed without the use of the specific keywords I would have searched.

Did you catch that last bit? Papers AI Assistant can apparently identify discussions of interest without the use of a keyword search. That is what a good index is supposed to do. Is this the beginnings of an AI that can replace indexers? Hinchliffe also writes that, “I am excited by the possibilities these AI tools offer for moving the focus from access to information to comprehension of it.”

A few thoughts: I have to admit that I am skeptical of the claim or hope that Papers AI and similar tools will help readers comprehend information. My sense is that AI works best as a tool, with the user clearly understanding its strengths and limitations, and with the user making the final decision on the quality of results and how best to use the results. That is similar to how I use the search function when indexing. Search is useful for double-checking facts and mentions, but I know that it doesn’t catch everything and isn’t good at providing context; I still need to read and understand the book. My fear is that many users will uncritically accept whatever the AI tool tells them, turning a program like Papers AI into glorified CliffNotes and enabling an even shallower engagement with the text. 

I think it is also worth pointing out that what is described here is not an index. An index is a static document that is browsable. That is very different from an AI highlighting a handful of potentially relevant passages. Browsability is key to an index because it allows the user to serendipitously find information they didn’t know they wanted to find. Being handed a few options leaves the rest of the text opaque and unaccessible. I imagine a user can keep asking the AI new questions, but that puts the onus on the user to know what they are searching for and how to ask relevant questions. 

Of course, if an AI can identify concepts and discussions in the absence of clear keywords, then a logical next step could be to ask that AI to generate an index. I can see value in the ability to create an index on the fly, for any document. I don’t know how much I would trust such an index, though. Hallucinations is one issue. Another is that AI, essentially, is built upon algorithms. Answers are always going to be follow a certain pattern. While indexing is built upon rules and conventions, the indexer also plays a key decision-making role as they shape the contents, phrasing, and structure. These judgement calls extend beyond the formal rules of indexing to take into account elements such as the audience and usability. I am skeptical that an AI would be able to understand and produce these nuances.

Another issue is that these AI tools are entirely digital. They will not work on a print book, though, of course, an AI-generated index could be published in print. Is the future of publishing and of engagement with texts entirely digital? Perhaps in academia and other specialized fields, in which there is so much information to access and consume. Print sales remain strong, however, and I am hopeful that there will continue to be a place for print indexes. Perhaps the future—finally arrived?—is what embedded indexing has long promised, which is one index capable of being used in multiple formats. 

Besides AI replacing indexers, I think it is also worth considering how we as indexers can use AI in our own work. I am aware of one colleague who uses ChatGPT to summarize complicated books and to answer queries about the text, which helps that indexer comprehend the book more quickly. Which sounds very similar to what Papers AI claims to do. I think that is a legitimate use of AI. So long as the indexer is in control—using the AI as a tool, understanding both indexing best practices and the contents of the book, and is actively shaping the index—then why not use AI? I’m also open to having AI index elements which are time-consuming to pick up, such as scientific names, so long as the indexer is providing quality control. What I don’t want to see are indexers—or anyone else—passively accepting an AI-generated index, assuming that it is accurate and functional when it is actually not. That is my worse nightmare about AI, that we abdicate our critical thinking and decision making skills, potentially leading to errors and disasters because we have lost the ability to assess what AI is telling us.

Author Pushback

In contrast to the gold rush to embed AI into publishing, another colleague pointed out that some books are beginning to be published with prohibitions against AI and machine learning listed on the copyright page.  I also recently noticed this in a book I am indexing.

I’ve also heard from a trade client that their authors are starting to insist that book contracts include a clause that their books will not be uploaded or otherwise used to train AI. By extension, this means that all freelancers hired by this press, including myself, are not allowed to use AI tools while working on their manuscripts and proofs (which isn’t a problem for me, since I wasn’t doing so anyway). 

Will authors and publishers win against AI? Will publishers find ways to enforce their contracts and prohibitions? Will publishers change their minds, or will AI developers sufficiently address the fears that authors have? I suspect this may be an area where the publishing industry goes in two different directions: some segments, such as academic publishing, which prize easy access to information (provided you can get behind the paywall), will embrace AI, while other segments, which care more about the author and which sell directly to readers, will reject AI. 

Or, maybe AI in publishing is a bubble and these new applications will fail to live up to their hype. 

I still think that someone will try to develop an AI capable to writing an index. Some publishers will probably adopt it for the sake of saving time and money, even if the resulting indexes are useless. I am also hopeful that the value of the human touch will remain. Even if AI is incorporated into our work, I think there is still place for human guidance and discernment. Machines may be capable of generating an approximation, but only humans can create what is truly useful for other humans.

Article
July 9, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

One Year Book Birthday!

My book is one year old! Well, close enough to a full year. The official one year mark is July 11, two days from now. 

I feel like this anniversary has snuck up on me. Sales for Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide have slowed over the last few months, but still plugging away at 5-8 copies per month. I probably could do more to market the book, though I find my attention elsewhere, and at a certain point, I think, you need to let books grow on their own. But I am still very proud for what I’ve accomplished writing and publishing Book Indexing. I occasionally hear from people that they have bought and read the book, which is always a lovely surprise and affirmation.

With the book out in the world for a full year, I thought this would be a fun opportunity to do a quick round-up on how the book has fared, as well as a good time to announce that the ebook version is once again on sale at Smashwords. 

Sales Update

Book Indexing has sold 206 copies to date, which I am thrilled about. I was really hoping to hit the 200 copy milestone within this first year. This breaks down to 106 print copies and 100 ebook copies. Ebook sales appear to be on the verge of overtaking print. Maybe Book Indexing can reach 300 copies by this time next year?

I find this breakdown between print and ebook interesting because I think it bucks a few different expectations. On the indie author side, my understanding is that the vast majority of sales tend to be ebook, though that may also be primarily for fiction. I am not sure what the numbers are for self-published nonfiction. While on the indexing side, most indexers I know are book people and like to own physical copies. So while I am not surprised at the number of print sales, I am a bit surprised at how print sales have slowed while ebook sales are holding steady. On the other hand, some of the ebook sales are from places like Japan, India, Serbia, and Australia, where I imagine it is more difficult or expensive to get a print copy. Whatever the reasons, I think I made the right decision to make the book available in both formats, and I’m happy that Book Indexing is finding its readers. 

Library Availability

I also recently checked Book Indexing in Worldcat and was surprised to see that it is available from five libraries, including public libraries in Greeley, CO; Richardson, TX; and Washington, DC. A huge thank you if you put in a word for me at your local library.

Libraries can order both the print and ebook versions. I think having the book available in libraries is a win-win for everyone. I still receive royalties for the sale and people can discover the book for free. If you’d like to see Book Indexing in your local library, please consider contacting your library and requesting it. I know my local library welcomes requests and yours probably does too. 

Marketing

I had a bit of momentum in the first six months or so after Book Indexing was publishing. I pushed past my fear of stuttering in public and completed two podcast interviews. The first was with Mark Leslie Lefebvre on his Stark Reflections podcast and the second was with Michelle Guiliano on the Freelance Indexer Exchange. 

I also received two positive reviews, from Daniel Heila in Key Words and Madelon Nanninga in The Indexer. I am so grateful for their feedback and kind words. With a book like this, I hoped it would be well received by my peers and colleagues, but it’s hard to predict. At least, I don’t want to assume. 

I also recently published an article in the June 2024 edition of The Indexer, in which I discuss my experience writing and publishing Book Indexing.

Otherwise, my focus has shifted. I still have my regular indexing workload. I recently presented at the Canadian indexing conference and am preparing to present again at another conference in a couple of months. I’ve also been getting back into writing fiction.

Looking ahead, one of my goals this year is to redo my website, which is badly out of date. Among other aspects to update, I want to better showcase my book and explain what it is all about. I am also thinking of taking, probably in the fall, Austin Church’s six-week Morning Marketing Habit course, to learn and develop better marketing habits, for both my indexing work and my book. For the time being, these are my two marketing goals going forward. 

Smashwords Summer Sale

If you are interested and haven’t yet picked up the ebook version, Book Indexing is once again 50% off at Smashwords.  The sale runs for the entire month of July. It’s hard to learn how to index for much cheaper. If you know of someone who would be interested, please feel free to share the link. Recommendations count for a lot.

Thank You

Thank you again for all of your support on this writing and publishing adventure. I wouldn’t be here—and Book Indexing wouldn’t be here—without your interest and encouragement. I am grateful to have you as a reader.

Article
June 25, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When Subheadings Are Not So Useful

I love subheadings. They add so much to an index, breaking down long strings of locators into smaller chunks, highlighting meaning distinctions, and gathering related entries into lists so readers only need to search in one place. As I discuss in my last reflection, subheadings can also reflect the story that the text is telling. Well-written subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful.

But…in indexing there is always a but. Occasionally, a project comes along that proves the exception. 

This happened with a recent index I wrote, for To See What He Saw: J.E.H. MacDonald and the O’Hara Years, 1924-1932, by Stanley Munn and Patricia Cucman (Figure 1 Publishing, 2024). J.E.H. MacDonald was a Canadian painter and a member of the Group of Seven. He fell in love with the landscape around Lake O’Hara, in the Rocky Mountains, and spent several summers there painting. This book takes an interesting approach to MacDonald. Over the course of almost twenty years, the authors sought to identify the exact locations where MacDonald painted. The bulk of the book is composed of a brief discussion of each of the O’Hara paintings, alongside a photograph of what the scene looks like today. The rest of the book is composed of an introduction, an overview of each of MacDonald’s eight trips, and excerpts from MacDonald’s diaries and other writings. The result is a beautifully illustrated coffee-table book. 

The instructions from the press were to only index the paintings, people, and places. While narrow in scope, there isn’t too much else discussed, and these are what readers are most likely to want to find, so I thought the instructions reasonable. Figure 1 Publishing is also very good at providing clear specifications for how long the index can be. For this book, the specs were 55-60 characters per line, for 675 lines total. 

I quickly realized that the book mentions a lot of paintings and places. The book discusses 226 paintings, almost all of them by MacDonald. With each painting taking up at least a line, some of them more, the paintings alone fill up about a third of the index. The rest of the index is mostly places—mountains, lakes, creeks, trails, huts—in and around Lake O’Hara that MacDonald either painted or visited. In comparison, only a few people are mentioned.

I also realized that the book contains a lot of repetition. For example, the same mountain may appear in a couple dozen different paintings. That mountain is mentioned again in the overviews of MacDonald’s trips, and then again in MacDonald’s diaries. This kind of repetition makes sense given how the book describes the same events and paintings from different angles, but it does mean that the mentions add up. Arrays with especially long strings of locators include Cathedral Mountain (49 page references), Hungabee Mountain (39 references), Odaray Bench (34 references), Lake McArthur (32 references), and Lake Oesa (27 references).

Normally, I would add subheadings to these arrays. Asking readers to look up each page reference is a big ask. But for this index, I left those strings, for paintings and places, intact. 

Not using subheadings was a conscious decision, and one I didn’t make lightly. My initial instinct was to find subheadings. But as I indexed and considered the entries, I also realized that subheadings would not be so useful in this particular index. Wanting a second opinion and to avoid surprising the press with a departure from my usual approach, I also queried the editor I was working with and got their approval.

I decided to not use subheadings for two reasons. One, I realized that too many subheadings would quickly make the index too long. Unfortunately, space constraints can sometimes mean putting aside the index that you want to write for the index that fits. In these situations, I need to be strategic about picking and choosing the subheadings that will have the biggest impact, while also being okay with other arrays not having subheadings. 

More importantly, though, for this book, I couldn’t think of subheadings that I was satisfied with. For subheadings to be effective, they need to clearly articulate additional information that readers can use to narrow their search. But what if there are no clear distinctions between locators? In that case, I think the long strings of locators should be left alone. It is not helpful to introduce artificial distinctions or to get so granular that context is lost. 

As I mentioned, this book contains a lot of repetition. Places either appear in MacDonald’s paintings, are places that MacDonald visited, or both. This doesn’t provide much to hang a wide range of subheadings. 

I briefly considered listings all of the paintings that each mountain or other feature appears in, along with a subheading for MacDonald’s presence at. For example, 

Cathedral Mountain: MacDonald at; in painting 1; in painting 2; in painting 3; in painting 4; in painting 5; etc…

But this approach presents a few problems. Some arrays would have been enormous, with a dozen or two subheadings for each of the paintings. Besides the space issue, I’m not convinced that listing each painting would have been meaningful to readers. Would readers remember the titles of individual paintings? In many cases, multiple paintings shared the same title. Thankfully, the authors give each painting a unique alphanumeric code, which I included in the index to differentiate. For example, “Lake O’Hara (25-1.3(S))” and “Lake O’Hara (30-3.1).” But I imagine it would still be difficult remembering which is which. Alternatively, I could have created a subheading for “in paintings,” but that would have still resulted in a long string of locators, as would the subheading “MacDonald at.” “MacDonald at” also isn’t very useful since readers can presumably assume that MacDonald was there, as that is the focus of the book. 

Given the space constraint and that either way—with a couple of generic subheadings or without subheadings—the arrays would have long strings of locators, I decided it was best to keep the arrays simple and to forego subheadings. This does mean that readers will need to search through each locator, though readers should also quickly notice the repetition, and it is all there for the dedicated searcher. 

This isn’t to say that I avoided subheadings entirely. I did use them in a few places, mostly for people, though even with people I found it difficult to avoid longer strings of locators. Many of these references are brief mentions and again reflect the repetition throughout the book. For example, here are two arrays for MacDonald’s friend, George Link, and wife, Joan.

Link, George K.K.
     about, 234, 343n83
     Lake O’Hara Trails Club and, 340n25
     MacDonald and, 82, 91, 104, 107, 113, 114, 143, 215, 224, 233, 234, 239, 243, 249, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 264, 294, 301, 307, 308, 310
     photographs, 246, 260

MacDonald, Joan
     encouragement from to travel west, 13, 202, 205
     letters to, 93, 96, 115, 120, 121, 122, 131, 167, 175, 200, 203, 204, 205–6, 211–12, 229, 230–31, 236, 240, 256, 265
     Links and, 341n47
     MacDonald’s departure west and, 250
     mentions in MacDonald’s diary, 304, 308
     O’Hara trip with MacDonald, 36, 123, 191, 217, 221, 222, 223–24, 259
     photo album, 224

While I highly encourage you to include subheadings and to make sure that subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful, I think it is also worthwhile considering the exceptions to the rule. I hope that my approach to the index for To See What He Saw, about J.E.H. MacDonald’s paintings in and around Lake O’Hara, is helpful for considering when subheadings may not be useful. If there is a lot of repetition in the text, if it is difficult to find meaningful distinctions, and if there is a hard space constraint, then it is okay to have long strings of undifferentiated locators. It is not ideal, but it may still be the best solution for that particular text and index.

Article
June 11, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Indexing as Storytelling

What does the process of indexing consist of?

Is it primarily a process of extracting terms from the text? I’ve noticed, when talking to readers and editors, that this seems to be how many people conceptualize writing an index. It is less writing and more data mining. 

I want to suggest an alternative approach. While identifying and picking up key words is important, I don’t think that that is enough. A excellent index should also contain an element of storytelling. 

I also want to address a mistake that I’ve seen newer indexers make. It is being so focused on the myriad details of the text that they—and the index—lose sight of the larger context. I’ve noticed this especially in subheadings. I don’t think that this is an intentional mistake. Books contain such a tsunami of information that it can be difficult to know where to focus. This is why I prefer to spread the work out over several days, so my mind has time to process and absorb what I’ve read. If you struggle to keep the big picture in mind while indexing, I hope this reflection gives you some pointers.

As a caveat, while writing this I have in mind narrative-driven books. Think histories and biographies. These are books that typically contain a lot of detail while also telling a story. Other sorts of books, such as in the social sciences, how-to guides, or law, are more technical in nature and may not have an overt narrative (though every book should have some sort of structure). But even for more technical books, it is important to keep the larger context in mind. 

Context, Context, Context

In my book, Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide, I discuss what I call the hierarchy of information. At the top is the metatopic, which is what the entire book is about. Below that are the supermain discussions, which are the handful of major arguments or areas of focus that comprise the metatopic. Below the supermain discussions are the regular discussions, which are the sub-discussions which flesh out the supermains. At the very bottom are all the little details, typically names, places, events, etc… All of these layers are nested together and should be reflected in the index.

When I refer to the context or the big picture of a book, I am talking about the metatopic, supermain, and regular discussions. These are the overarching discussions that give meaning to the smaller details. Problems can arise when the indexer fails to link back to the context, leaving readers confused about the meaning or relevance of an array or subheading.

Audience as Context

Before I jump into some examples at the subheading level, which is where I usually see this issue, I also want to mention that the book’s audience is also an important context. Not every detail is indexable. Before starting the index, think about what is important to the readers.

I’ve seen it happen when the indexer is so focused on picking up the details that they forget to assess whether the details are relevant. For example (and this is a made-up example, as I don’t want to embarrass anyone), say the book is a memoir on hiking Mount Everest. The author also briefly discusses, over a few paragraphs, a previous trip hiking Mount Kilimanjaro. Since it is discussed, Mount Kilimanjaro should have a main entry, but because the overall focus of the book—and presumably of readers—is on Mount Everest, the indexer does not need to pick up specific details about people and places associated with Mount Kilimanjaro. Those details are not relevant and will bloat the index. Instead, focus the index on Mount Everest. 

Using Subheadings to Tell a Story

Now let’s discuss subheadings.

Subheadings are crucial for breaking down large arrays into searchable chunks, but they are only effective if they are clearly written. Subheadings which are too granular and disconnected from their context are not helpful.

Consider this example. This is also made-up and is similar to real arrays that I have seen.  

Obama, Barack: communications with; congressional leaders and; economy and; Iraq and; oil and; as president; Senate and

How much do you understand about Obama from these subheadings? Do you have a clear sense of what you will find if you let these subheadings direct you?

To start, who is Obama communicating with? About what? It could be about anything. The subheadings “congressional leaders and’ and “Senate and” are a little more specific. If the text itself is vague or if these subheadings cover multiple interactions, then this level of vagueness may be appropriate. But what if we learn that these three subheadings are all referring to negotiations over the Affordable Care Act? Now we have context.

“As president” is also an unhelpful subheading, since most readers should know that Obama was president. Does it help to learn that the context is being elected during the 2008 presidential election? The other subheadings, for the economy, Iraq, and oil, may be clear enough, though it again depends on what the text is actually about. 

While all of these subheadings are technically correct—Obama is indeed communicating with someone, he is president, and he is doing something in regards to the economy—these subheadings also feel disconnected from anything concrete, at least to me. If we revise these subheadings to more accurately reflect the larger discussions, we get the following array. Which seems more connected to his presidency? Which is more helpful to readers?

Obama, Barack: 2008 presidential election; Affordable Care Act; economic policies; Keystone XL pipeline; withdrawal from Iraq

Let’s look at another example. Sometimes subheadings within an array are treated as a list, as in a list of names. 

Microsoft: Allen; Ballmer; Gates; Nadella; Wallace

These are all key players in Microsoft’s history. They are important and should all have main entries, but is listing them as subheadings really the best use of the Microsoft array? It doesn’t tell us much except that these people all have links to Microsoft. Why not use the subheadings to instead tell Microsoft’s story? Gates, Ballmer, and the others can still be in the index; just not the focus here. 

Rewriting the Book in the Index?

At this point, I can imagine a couple of objections. Is storytelling really appropriate within an index?

A common rule of thumb is to not rewrite the book in the index. I understand the point, that the index is supposed to direct readers to where the discussion actually is. But the index can only direct if the entries are clearly written. One of the best ways to be clear, in my opinion, is to connect to the larger context. I enjoy stories, and so I like to think of this as storytelling. If it helps, think of this as being clear and specific. What will resonate with the reader? Use that to hook the reader and send them in the right direction. 

It is also important to select the level of specificity that matches the discussion in the text. Returning to the Obama example, the Affordable Care Act is much more specific, and therefore more meaningful, than a generic subheading for healthcare policies. But if the discussion in the book is more like a broad overview, as in an overview of various economic policies, then a subheading at a broader level, like “economic policies,” would be the better choice.

Storytelling vs. Lists

I am also not saying that you should never make a list. Using subheadings to gather information into a list is also a valid approach. The two approaches can even be used in the same index. For example, for a book about Margaret Atwood, the main array for Atwood could tell the story of her life and career while a separate array—perhaps appended using the em-dash-modified format—could list all mentions of her novels and other writings. Books that are more technical in nature, rather than narrative-driven, may also favor lists over storytelling. The trick is knowing when each strategy is appropriate.

I also think that storytelling—making sure that the big picture is adequately represented in the index—can be more difficult to do, or at least more difficult to remember. It is summarizing and pointing towards the narrative and structure that exists within the book. Gathering together a list is often easier. 

When indexing, remember that you have options for how to present entries and information to the reader, and that your goal is to clearly communicate what the book is about.

Taking a Step Back

So how do you see the big picture? How do you channel that wave of information that is threatening to overwhelm you?

I find it helps to pause and take a step back. I especially do this if I feel like I’ve lost sight of the author’s argument or point. Or if there are a lot of names and other details and so it is easier to make two passes over that section, once for the details and a second time to see the full picture. I ask myself, “What is this discussion about, anyway?” Once I’ve identified the overarching discussion, I may need to go back and create entries for the context that I’ve missed.

If you struggle to see the big picture or the hierarchy of information, try to develop a habit of pausing and reflecting. Read until you hit a transition. Pause. How would you summarize the discussion you just read? How does the discussion fit into the larger structure or narrative of the book? Try completing the following sentence: “This section is about…” Be clear, specific, and meaningful. Once you have your answer, put it in the index.