Article
May 1, 2019
2 comments
by Stephen

Using Triage to Shorten an Index

Cutting an index to fit a tight space limitation is never fun. At least, I do not enjoy it.

By cutting, I mean shortening the index beyond what I think the index should be. Editing may lengthen or shorten the index, depending on what needs to be done to make the index its best self, while cutting is simply about removing to fit an external standard. 

Yet, I think cutting an index can still be done well. The final index may not be ideal, but it can still be elegant and appear as a coherent whole. To do this, I have developed a form of triage to guide how I cut. 

The word triage comes from the medical world, and refers to making treatment decisions in situations of insufficient time or resources. In a way, triage is heartbreaking because it means that not everyone will receive treatment or treatment in a timely manner, yet it is effective because it forces the medical personnel to start with the patients for whom they can make the biggest impact.

For an index, my goal is to deliver the best index I can by using the most judicious cuts. Which cuts shorten the most while impacting the quality of the index the least? To do this, here are five strategies and considerations I keep in mind.

1) Identify What Needs to be Kept

This step seems counterintuitive because the goal of cutting, after all, is to remove. Yet I still think it is important that the core entries remain largely intact. I want the reader to still get a broad overview of the book from the index. This means identifying the metatopic entries and supermain headings, which cover the main points of the book. Once I have identified these, I may combine or shorten a few subheadings here and there, but mostly I cut around them.

2) Remove Subheadings

I do not like long strings of undifferentiated locators or mixing subheadings with unruly locators, but I will make exceptions to cut an index as subheadings do take up space. My usual bar for when to add subheadings is six or more locators, but if I need to cut I will raise the bar to say ten locators. I will also remove subheadings for less important entries, as a tradeoff for keeping subheadings for my core entries.

3) Eliminate Multiple Entry Points

One of the hallmarks of a good index is that a reader can find the same information in two or more ways. When I cut, I see multiple entry points as a luxury. My goal is to still have at least one entry point for each piece of information, but I will look for ways to cut out repetition. The main way I do this is to remove double-posts. If information is presented as both a main heading and a subheading, I may choose one or the other. I may also use more cross-references to compensate, if it seems like the cross-reference will take up less space.

4) Raise the Bar for Passing Mentions

Another strategy I use is to raise the bar for what I consider to be passing mentions. I actually start thinking about this before I edit the index. If I create an entry that I think I might be willing to cut, I label it so that it is easy to later find. You may ask, why not just cut if the entry is borderline? I would say that there are degrees of passing mentions, and what may be irrelevant to one person is valuable to another. So I tend to err on being inclusive, while recognizing that I may need to change my standard in order to cut.

5) Be Consistent

Regardless of which strategies I employ, I try to be consistent across the index. If I am cutting an entry from a certain type or level of entry, for example, I try to do the same for all entries of that type or level. I do not want the cuts to appear random or for a reader to say, Why is this entry included but not that? I know that a cut index is full of holes, but at least by being consistent I hope to mask the damage and make it appear that the index was still deliberately and thoughtfully made.

Ultimately, cutting an index is about tradeoffs. What gets to stay and what needs to go? These are not always easy decisions, especially if the cuts occur after careful editing. Still, with some planning, I think a decent index can still emerge. The index may not be great, but it can at least still be okay and still serve the reader as best it can.

Article
April 24, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

The Power to Reveal and Conceal in an Index

Indexers hold great power, more than I think we often realize. Since the index we write will serve as a major entry point into the text for readers, we have a lot of influence over what readers find and how.

I first came to this realization a few years ago through my work indexing books on Indigenous topics. In Canada, where I live, these topics can be quite emotionally and politically charged, since as a nation we are still coming to terms with the legacy of colonialism. When working on such material, I am conscious that these are not my stories to tell. I do not fully understand these issues from the point of view of the Indigenous communities and individuals. Yet as the indexer, I have to somehow decide how best to present the information. 

One common claim by indexers is that the index needs to reflect the text, which is another way to say that the index needs to be objective. I agree that the index should be as objective as possible. Yet indexers also acknowledge that no two indexers will ever create the same index. The index is a subjective document, filtered through the indexer’s understanding of the text and preferred indexing practices. To be an ethical indexer, I think we need to consider and be aware of the different ways in which we can shape the index, particularly in how we can reveal or conceal information.

So, what are some ways in which this can happen?

The simplest way this happens is from me reading the text and making a decision about what I read. Is this detail or discussion important enough to be included in the index? Do I think there might be a reader who will want to find this information? To be objective, I have to be careful not to let personal bias or ignorance colour my decisions.

Next, let’s consider when I have chosen to index a certain discussion in the text. I can choose to highlight that discussion in a number of ways. I could use subheadings, for example, to both provide more information to the reader about the discussion, as well as to make the entry physically larger than surrounding entries, making the entry stand out. If there are a number of possible terms for the discussion, I can choose one that readers are likely to know and use and provide cross-references from the other terms. If the discussion is found in a subheading, I have try to have that subheading sort to the top of the entry to be more visible.

Conversely, I can choose not to use subheadings, even if there are enough locators to warrant them. I could also use a less common term as the main heading, and not use cross-references or double-posts to provide multiple entry points. I could also bury a subheading in the middle or at the bottom of an entry, or use vague wording to obscure the meaning. In all these cases, a reader can still find the discussion in the index, but the discussion is much less noticeable. Of course, I could also choose to not create an entry, thereby omitting the discussion.

In a best case scenario, when there is no line or page limit for the index, we can make sure that most, if not all, of the information in the text is clearly present in the index. But I think it is important to recognize that if there is not enough space, then the indexer may be forced to cut or obscure information out of necessity to make the index fit. This is not ideal, and while more can be said, I do have a triage process in order to identify what is most important to keep in the index and what can be cut or reduced. 

To give an example of how our decisions can affect the index, a few years ago I indexed the memoir of an Indigenous politician who described, alongside his many accomplishments, his struggles with alcoholism, depression, infidelities, and being sexually assaulted in residential school. It was quite a candid account, and I created headings and subheadings for these difficult topics, where I thought appropriate, in order to reflect the text. The publisher disagreed, and either removed the subheadings or folded these into a single subheading called “personal problems.”

The first reason the publisher gave was space, which, while I did not like it, I could at least accept. The second reason, though, was that the publisher did not want to make the author look bad. I disagreed, thinking that these changes whitewashed the issues and if the author was so candid, why not the index? It seemed that the priorities of the publisher were obscuring entry points into the text, which drove home for me this idea of revelation and concealment in an index. 

In the end, the index was published as the publisher wanted. In hindsight, maybe they were right, though I am thinking more about other victims who might have found the entries to be triggering than I am thinking about the author’s reputation. My point here is not to say that I was right and the publisher wrong, because I think handling sensitive information in an index is complicated and I am willing to accept that I was not entirely right. I am sharing this story instead to show how easily indexing decisions can affect how information is transmitted in an index. Our choices as indexers (and editors of indexes) do have consequences. While we cannot always write the index we want, due to external factors, we can still be mindful about the choices we make, and choose to reveal instead of hide.

Article
April 17, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Index Entries, Reconsidered

First, a definition. An entry, sometimes also called an entry array, is a single unit comprised of the main heading and everything that goes with it, which can include subheadings, locators, and cross-references. It is complete unto itself.

Yet though complete unto itself, a single entry is not an index. An index, rather, is formed by multiple entries—often hundreds or even thousands of entries—placed together. It is this unity out of many that allows an index to point readers towards so many different pieces of information in the text.

To succeed in its function, an entry needs to be clearly written. The user of the index should understand exactly what they can expect to find if they go to where the entry points. Subheadings and cross-references are tools that can be used to achieve this clarity. 

The entry also needs to contain the sum total of everything the reader needs to know about that specific subject. There is no ideal length for an entry, so long as the entry contains everything it needs. Each entry will be unique. 

Having said that, since an index consists of entries in aggregate, there should be consistency in how entries are written and formatted. Subheadings should be written in a similar style and used for similar reasons, for example. Exceptions can exist, so that each entry can be the best that it can be, but overall there should be a sense of unity to the index, which stems from the entries working together.

It is also important to recognize that not all entries are equal. Metatopic and supermain heading entries, for example, will likely be expansive, reflecting the role of those topics in the text. Regular main headings and other lesser details will likely have simpler entries. If index length is an issue, some entries may have to be prioritized over others, by way of elimination or brevity.

An entry is quite elemental and basic to the index; it hardly seems worth talking about. Yet it is also the building block out of which the index is constructed. It is possible to write a poorly written entry, which obscures and confuses rather than illumines, which in turn will lead to a mediocre index. So I think it is worth asking, what makes a good entry? Get the basics right, and the rest of the index will follow.

Article
April 10, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Choosing Appropriate Depth for an Index

Early in my indexing career I indexed a gardening book. In trying to follow the principle of specificity, I decided to create an entry for each tool which was discussed within a brief section on gardening tools. In her review, the client, who was also the managing editor for the book, commented that a single entry for gardening tools would have been sufficient. I can’t remember now, but she might have changed the index to reflect her point of view.

Regardless of who was right (I am willing to believe she was), this feedback alerted me to the issue of depth in an index. By depth I mean that there can be different layers in an index, which often reflects the types of information in the book, and which exists in a continuum from general or broad information to more and more detailed. The question is, which layers should be included in the index and which can be left out. 

Conceptualizing Depth

Let’s look at a couple of examples of how depth can manifest. 

The first, as mentioned, is to consider the different types of information in the text. For example, a book on transportation might have the following layers:

  • transportation (metatopic)
  • motor regulations (main topic)
  • taxies (subtopic)
  • Yellow Cab Company (example)
  • Jean the Taxi Driver (example/passing mention)

Each of these provides a different point of view and point of entry to the subject. An index should probably have entries for most, if not all, of these levels. 

Depth can also be shown through the use of subheadings and cross-references. In the following example, the subheading and cross-reference reveal a set of relationships, at least one of which is clearly hierarchical. 

  • motor regulations: taxies. See also Yellow Cab Company

Finding the Sweet Spot

The opposite of depth is a flat index, which I think is rarely helpful for the reader. By flat, I mean an index with no or very few subheadings, which means relationships are not indicated. Most terms also seem to come from the same level, likely on the upper, conceptual end, and subtopics and examples may not be present. While such an index gives a broad sense of the book, it does not facilitate more precise searching and much of the text remains opaque or hidden.

Yet, it may not be appropriate to include every level in the index. For the gardening index I wrote, the client clearly thought that having individual entries for each tool was a step too deep. It was enough to have a single, more general entry for tools. Going deep in this instance likely bloated the index. 

We can also question if the uppermost level—the metatopic—should be included in the index, or at least whether the metatopic entry should be prominent. The metatopic entry can often serve as a signpost to direct readers through the index, and while this can be helpful in many books it is not true for all. To use gardening again as an example, many gardening books clearly state the metatopic on the front cover and the reader likely has a clear idea of what they want to find. Signposting from the metatopic, while possible, is probably not necessary, and so that top level can be eliminated or reduced. 

In a way, depth in an index is about finding the sweet spot between too general and too detailed. It is about finding the right amount of detail with which to communicate to the reader. 

Tips for Choosing Appropriate Depth

So, how do we decide which layers to include?

One way is to consider the audience. I think most scholarly indexes should be deep, reflecting the level of thought that scholars put into their work. Readers of trade books, on the other hand, may not want to spend as much time searching in the index. For them, more general entries may be sufficient, leaving the reader to discover the finer details on their own.

We can also consider how the item is discussed in the text, as well as how the audience might perceive the information. If we can understand how that piece relates to its context, it can be easier to see its relative importance.

A last consideration is space. If there is a page or line limit for the index, then a decision will have to made about which entries to keep and which to cut. In this situation, I usually skew towards a shallower index, cutting out more specific detail so that at least the reader can get a broad overview of the book from the index.

In the end, decisions about depth will probably involve all three of these aspects. Trade-offs may have to be made, and clients or other indexers may have different opinion about what is appropriate. But I think these decisions will be easier if we can see and understand depth in an index, including how we can manipulate depth and how depth affects the index and the readers’ experience.