Today’s question comes from Winona, and references a previous reflection I wrote. Winona asks:

In your post on the subjective side of indexing, you write that two indexers can produce different indexes for the same book, but that there should still be significant overlap because the text’s aboutness remains the same. Is there any practical way to quantify that overlap? For instance, after accounting for defensible differences in wording, formatting, and structure, should a certain percentage — say, 50% or more — of top-level entries overlap?

Thank you, Winona. That is an excellent question. If a certain amount of overlap is expected, it is reasonable to ask if that overlap can be quantified.

My short answer is no, I do not know if there is a practical way to quantify that overlap. I am also not sure if it is possible to ever fully quantify it. I imagine a lot would depend on the subject matter and type of book, as well as, of course, the subjective approach each indexer brings.

To attempt a quantitative answer, I think you would need to analyze multiple indexes from multiple indexers across several books. I have not done that research. If someone else would like to do so, I think the results would be fascinating.

I will, however, still attempt a response. While I do not have hard numbers, this is a question worth considering and I have some thoughts about what to look for in terms of overlap. I am mostly drawing upon my experience working with subcontractors. While subcontracting is not an exact comparison, since there is usually one indexer providing direction, subcontracting does involve two or more indexers working on the same text.

I also highly recommend this article by Jolanta Komornicka, recently published in The Indexer. Jolanta convened two panels, at two different conferences, for which participating indexers indexed the same book. Jolanta attempts to answer this very question, of how similar or different the resulting indexes are. Definitely worth checking out.

When considering overlap between indexes for the same book, I want to distinguish between main headings and everything else.

At the main heading level, I would expect a high level of overlap. Most terms are not up for interpretation. People, places, organizations, and objects should generally be indexed as written in the text. Concepts which are clearly identified in the text should also usually be indexed as presented.

There is still some room for variation and the indexers’ subjective choices. For example, whether or not to include glosses, and how to phrase the glosses; how to handle synonymous terms; what counts as a passing mention, and, conversely, which are important themes and discussions; and any discussions which are implicit and which require more interpretation. But by and large, I would expect main headings to mostly be similar across all indexes. 

Beyond main headings, I think there is far more room for different decisions to be made. These include:

• Metatopic: How is the metatopic handled?
• Structure: How is information divided or gathered throughout the index?
• Subheadings: How many subheadings are used? Are subheadings mixed with undifferentiated locators? How are subheadings phrased?
• Cross-references: Are cross-references used sparingly or extensively? In which directions are cross-references pointing? Are cross-references used alongside or instead of double-posts?

At the level of structure and subheadings, there are so many different decisions that can be made. There should be recognizable overlap in terms of themes and correspondence to the text, but I don’t know if it is possible to quantify how much overlap or to expect that certain subheadings and arrays will be interchangeable. 

To sum up, I would expect a high level of overlap between main headings, since many terms should be indexed as is. But indexing is a lot more than simply identifying and picking up terms. An excellent index involves organizing all of those terms in a way that is accessible and to highlight the key themes of the book. How all that organization happens is very much subjective. While the indexes should all still clearly point back to the same text, I don’t know if it is possible to fully quantify overlap.

Shifting directions slightly: I think what the creators of AI indexing tools are attempting to do is to quantify or codify indexing decisions. Or at least they believe that a good index is simply the result of following a certain set of rules. But that is not entirely true. Yes, an index is deeply governed by rules and conventions, and an AI tool can probably reproduce those rules and mimic various techniques. But an excellent index is ultimately the result of the indexer’s judgment. It is deciding which rules to apply, and when, and how to combine techniques, and how to make adjustments to fit the material rather than trying to force the material to fit the format. The subjective nature of writing an index, while difficult to quantify and difficult to compare, is also a superpower, enabling indexes and indexers to respond to the text and to readers. 

PS. As I mentioned, I highly recommend Jolanta Komornicka’s recent article in which Jolanta attempts to quantify how similar and different the indexes by her panelists are. You can find it here. If you do not have a subscription to The Indexer, try accessing through your local library. 

I don’t want to change the publishers and authors that I work with. There are a handful of publishers I’ve worked with for almost as long as I’ve been freelancing. I am grateful for these long-standing relationships and would hate to lose them. Yet as my business changes, I wonder if some of my clients and I will part ways.

My main concern, right now, is with price. I have been raising my prices to help raise my income to a level which is in line with my current financial needs and goals. I had a good discussion earlier this year with one of my anchor clients in which my contact acknowledged that they want to continue to work with me and that they want to pay me fairly, and yet there is a limit to how much of a price increase they can accommodate. We did settle on an increase, for which I am thankful. I would be very sad to lose this client. Yet a part of me is still uneasy, wondering about the next time we have this conversation.

For me, a key part of running a sustainable indexing business is having a diverse mix of clients and projects. Even my biggest clients provide no more than fifteen or twenty percent of my total income. I currently work with about fifteen different publishers, both trade and scholarly, who either hire me directly or refer me to their authors. Some of these publishers only hire or refer me for one or two books per year, but cumulatively it all add up. 

I don’t want to be too dependent on any one source because clients come and go. Over the fifteen years I’ve been freelancing, it has happened at least five or six times that a publisher I’ve worked with has gone out of business, was downsized, my main contact left, or… I don’t fully know the reason why I stopped hearing from them. But because I have a diverse mix of clients, occasionally losing one, while sad, doesn’t make much of a difference to my schedule. There are enough other offers coming in to fill the gap.

Maintaining a good mix also means that I am not tied to any single production schedule. Publishers tend to follow an internal production cycle, which depends on the types of books they publish and the audience they sell to. Think trade publishers releasing books in time for Christmas or textbook publishers preparing for the start of the next academic year. By working with a variety of publishers, there are certain times of the year I may index more trade, other times of the year more scholarly. Either way, my schedule stays full. 

A mix of projects also provides variety and respite. Some books are more of a grind to read and index. Having a different subject to switch to, or a different audience, can feel like a break even if it is still indexing.

So if you are a newer indexer, I recommend diversifying your client base and project mix. Specializing can be a excellent tactic to be distinctive and to simplify marketing, as well as to play to your strengths and subject expertise, but try to have three or four specialities, not just one. An anchor client or two who send multiple projects per year is great, but don’t stop there. Try to have at least six publishers, if not a dozen, who regularly offer work. If you primarily work with authors, be intentional about asking for referrals and expanding your network. The best way to ensure steady work is to have work from multiple sources. 

Over time, a wide client base should self-perpetuate. Satisfied clients become regular, repeat clients. Satisfied clients also pass your name along, leading to new clients. The need to actively market lessens because enough offers keep coming in. This has been my experience over the last several years. It is an excellent and fortunate position to be in. 

And yet.

As my business goals change, as I seek to optimize income, as I seek projects and clients which are a better fit for me, I may also need to proactively shift who I work with.

This is the part which is a pep talk for myself, because change is hard. I want my clients to like me. I don’t want to say no to reliable sources of work. Yet while serving the client is important, I need to remember that my business also exists to serve me. I am choosing to freelance in order to earn a certain level of income and to have a measure of control and flexibility in how I work. My client and project mix should support these goals as well.

I am not planning on making drastic changes, but I think I do need to be prepared for some change. I need to be prepared that I may price out clients as I raise rates. Being proactive, I can identify and fire my lowest paying clients, to make room for those with larger budgets. I can also look to see which books and subjects are most lucrative for me to index and which I earn the least on. Either I need to raise prices for those low performers or I need to turn down those offers and focus marketing on what I am good at. I want to maintain a diverse mix of clients, while also acknowledging that there are likely potential clients out there who are a better fit for my current goals whom I am not yet working with. The trick is to somehow find them. 

For experienced indexers, I think it is important to periodically check in with our business goals and to see if our current work aligns. Change can feel risky, especially if everything seems to be going alright. But improvements can often be made. Change can be incremental, more like adjusting the course. Change does not need to be wholesale reinvention. 

Whether you are a new indexer or experienced, how do you find your current mix of clients and projects? Are there any relationships you want to keep and strengthen? Any clients you want to get rid of? A dream client you have yet to land?

And yet, I am still reminded that subject expertise is really helpful to have, if for no other reason than to make indexing more enjoyable. It is a distinctly peculiar and unpleasant feeling to finish indexing for the day and to think, “I have no idea what I did today.” To not understand any of the concepts well enough to be able to describe them.

There are definitely subjects for which I lack sufficient background. I also tend to struggle with scholarly books which are written at a highly abstract, theoretical level. When I studied for my BA in political science, I did much better in comparative politics than political philosophy. And yet I still sometimes find myself indexing books which I am not well-suited for. 

There are various reasons why. One is if I didn’t fully vet or understand what the book is about. Contents don’t always match their descriptions. Another is if there is some aspect that does interest me, and so I talk myself into thinking that the index will be easier than it actually is. Or, the project is from a regular or newish client and I want to maintain a good relationship with them. Lastly, the client has accepted my quote. If I am not sure about a project or if I anticipate the index to be difficult, I often quote high, kind of hoping that the price will deter the client. But sometimes the client accepts anyway (which is maybe a sign that I need to raise my prices overall), and I am committed to honoring our agreement. 

So how do I index books that I don’t understand? And how do I deliver indexes that the client will still—hopefully—be happy with? I use a few tactics to help me through.

• Conduct research. I identify what I don’t understand and I look it up. This can mean looking up definitions for unfamiliar words and concepts, or this can be background information to provide context for the discussions in the book. If I am in contact with the author, research can also mean directly asking the author. I don’t want to spend too much time on research, and by the time I am finished I am still not an expert, but a little bit of additional knowledge can go a long way.
• Leverage what I do understand. While I may struggle to understand the central premise or key concepts, there are often concepts and sections that I do recognize, even if dimly. Finding those can feel like finding a life preserver, a sense of traction and progress. The temptation is the latch onto what I recognize, treating it as low-hanging fruit, and neglect the parts of the book that I do not understand. I still need to somehow find a way to index those parts which make my head spin, but having something that I recognize can both inspire confidence and provide an entry point, a sort of backdoor or side entrance to the rest of the book.
• Go slow. Don’t be in a hurry to complete the rough draft or to edit. Which can be tough if a deadline is looming, but rushing and skimming won’t help me understand. Instead, read slowly. Re-read sections as needed. Spend more time reviewing and double-checking entries when editing the index. Spend time reflecting on the text and writing summaries. Engaging more deeply, while slow, often leads to better understanding.
• Lean on indexing technique. I also fall back on my knowledge of indexing. I may not fully understand the text, but I know how to read a text. I know how to identify regular discussions and supermain discussions. I know how to pay attention to chapter titles and headings, and how to  tease out terms. I know how to structure the index and how to make arrays and entries clear. Despite gaps in my knowledge, I can still put together the best index I can. 
• Fall back on pointing to information. The index, after all, is to provide access to information; it is not about rewriting the book. If I can at least identify key terms and concepts, I can point to them, even if I don’t actually understand the discussions. This is not ideal, as I fear that headings and subheadings will not be as clearly written if I don’t understand what they point towards, but hopefully I can still manage to point readers in the right general direction.

Ironically, I often get the most praise for the indexes I most struggled to write. Maybe I overcompensated for my lack of familiarity by taking extra care with the index, or maybe the client, knowing that it was a difficult subject and having low expectations for the index, was pleasantly surprised. Either way, while those indexes were not easy, it does reinforce that I can index what I don’t know.

The best option remains saying no to the project. That is the most enjoyable option, avoiding work that I struggle with. That is also usually the easier and more financially lucrative option, as the index is less work to write. I do turn down projects that I don’t think are a good fit. But sometimes I find myself with a challenge anyway.

It helps to have strategies and a plan for getting through difficult books. I hope the above gives you some ideas. As indexers, we may see ourselves as specialists within certain subjects (and may have the degrees and work experience to back that up), but clients often see us as generalists. Inevitably, a project is going to come along that is not a good fit, subject-wise. If you accept, lean into your indexing expertise. You can still deliver an excellent index.

Today’s question is a little different in that it comes from a subcontractor I work with. The question was asked in response to a specific piece of advice that I gave for a previous project we worked on together. My thanks for asking and for suggesting this might be a good fit for a Q&A. 

With some modification to remove references to the specific project and so that the question is more broadly applicable:

How do you know when to use terms drawn directly from the text, including chapter titles and headings? In some of the books I’m indexing, the headings make for terrible terms.

Thank you for the question. I did previously advise that headings within the book can be a good source for main headings and subheadings in the index, and that it is not always necessary to reinvent the terms used in the index. That said, I also agree that headings within books are not always useful.

I think this is a good example of a conditional rule. If the headings and terms used in the book clearly describe what is discussed, then use those terms in the index. If the terms used in the book are not clear, then you may need to apply your own.

There are a few competing interests to keep in mind.

On the one hand, using terms from the book helps readers more easily see the connection between the index and the text. The reader does not need to make the mental leap from one term to another, to understand that both terms mean the same thing.

Certain terms can also be considered jargon or terms of art—specialized terms specific to that discipline. These terms are also important to pick up as is because the audience will likely be expecting them. The indexer should not try to reinterprete or rewrite terms of art.

Using terms from the text is also easier for the indexer. It is less time and effort spent on thinking up alternative phrasings. So go ahead and make your work a little easier by following the text’s lead. 

On the other hand, not all books lend themselves to clear terms. I find that certain disciplines and genres, such as in the social sciences or for guide or reference books, follow conventions which encourage a clear structure and clearly written headings. In other disciplines and genres, books can still be clearly written, but there seems to be more leeway for the author’s discretion. Authors may opt for descriptive headings which are fun to read but are not written in plain language. For those books, the indexable term which describes what the discussion is actually about may be buried or it requires the indexer to read between the lines.

Finding and selecting terms also brings to mind the issue of plain language, which Iva Cheung has done a lot of work to raise awareness of among Canadian indexers. It is my belief that the index, as a separate document, should be clearly understandable on its own. While the index is obviously intertwined with the text and ideally should mirror terminology, if the text is not clear, then the indexer should step in and find appropriate terms which are understandable to the audience. 

So when selecting terms for the index, first assess how the book is written. Are headings clearly written and accurately describe what each section is about? Are key terms clearly indicated in discussions? If yes, go ahead and use the language in the book. No need to intervene further.

If the answer is no, then it is time to dig deeper to see if the key terms are buried. Or, do some research or check in with the author to identify terms of art. Or, engage in some translation to clearly describe what the discussions are about. Intervening to rewrite terms takes a bit more work and should be a last resort, but may sometimes be necessary. 

Indexing is governed by a lot of rules and conventions. Every indexer, including myself, tend to have their favorite strategies and style preferences. These are important for shaping and refining the index. But is that all there is?

I’ve recently challenged myself to take a big step back. While conventions and strategies are important, and I’ve discussed many here, I also sometimes feel like I am getting lost among the weeds. What is the underlying why for these conventions, and why do they work in certain situations and not others? I also sometimes notice myself and others holding onto strategies as if they are immutable rules, even when they are no longer working.

The problem is that no single strategy will work all the time. Inevitably something about the text and index will be different and will require a different solution. Being too committed to any particular approach can lead to blindspots.

So, attempting to strip away all the various ways that an index can be pieced together, what are some fundamental principles? Can a larger framework be pulled together? Is there a way to contextualize all of those rules and conventions?

This is my current attempt.

1. Every index is going to be different. This may seem self-evident, but I think there can be the misconception, especially by those less familiar with indexing, that writing an index is about following a certain template. This is indexing as a mechanical process. In the AI age, perhaps indexing as an algorithmic process. For example, this can manifest as assuming that writing an index consists of matching page numbers to keywords, and that identifying appropriate keywords always follows a certain pattern. This can also manifest as committing to a specific convention or strategy no matter what, because that is the way that an index is supposed to be or because that is what is expected. What this misconception misses is that every text, and hence every index, is going to be different. Guidelines, conventions, and preferences need to be tailored to the subject matter, the audience, client preferences, and space constraints.
2. Be attentive to the big picture. Every index is about something, in the same way that every book is about something. The index should reflect all that the book is about. The big picture also includes the larger context of how the index will be used, who will use the index, and any constraints on length or style. These factors all shape the index. Lose sight of the big picture, and the index will likely either not fully reflect the book and/or not meet the needs of its users. Instead of thinking of the index as a collection of headings and subheadings, an excellent index is more than the sum of its parts, revealing something of the essence of the book. 
3. Index at multiple levels. Details matter, from the big picture on down. Entries and arrays for the different layers of information contained within the book reflects how the book is written, provides structure, and serve the various ways that readers may search. 
4. Always refer back to the larger context. The best way to ensure relevance and clarity is to be clear about why this heading or subheading matters in the larger context of the book and index. If you, as the indexer, doesn’t know, the index user probably won’t know either.
5. Understand the tools of the trade. Indexing conventions, guidelines, strategies, and preferences are tools for shaping the index. Know the differences between tools, and when they are applicable and when they are not. Be able to explain and justify the choice of tools. If certain conventions or strategies are not working in an index, then change or adapt. 
6. Remain creative and reflective. The process of writing an index is dynamic. Circling back around to the first principle above, every index will be different. While go-to strategies and styles can be a good starting point, it is important to keep sight of the big picture and to continually adjust as needed. Writing an index is ultimately a creative endeavor, requiring careful problem-solving to create the best index for that particular text and constraints. 

I still surprise myself when an index turns out to be more difficult than I expect. There is almost always something different.

To give an example, I’ve indexed several hiking guides for a long-time client. I consider these to be easy books to index. I have a system all figured out, for the types of entries I want to pick up and how to structure and style those entries. And yet the last hiking guide I received included significantly more Indigenous place names than previous volumes. I applaud the author and publisher for making an effort to identify, include, and educate readers on local Indigenous place names, and I want to support that effort in the index. The problem was that the space available for the index remained about the same. As I realized partway through, there was no way the index, with the addition of all those new place names, was going to fit. I needed to stop, reprioritize what to include, and rethink what I choose for main entry points.

I believe if we, as indexers, can approach each index as a fresh start, assuming upfront that something about the text and index will be different and will require creative problem-solving, and be able to keep the big picture in mind throughout the indexing process, then all of the other details will sort themselves out.

I had a lot more to write than I initially thought about how I use, or don’t use, cross-references, which is why I have split these reflections into two posts. Cross-references are a versatile tool for redirecting readers around the index. They highlight that beyond alphabetical sort, which imposes a default structure, the structure of the index should be deliberate. The decisions on where and how to phrase and place entries should be conscious, to facilitate the reader’s use of the index. Cross-references support that structure by making sure that readers get to the right place. 

Today I’m going to discuss general cross-references, cross-references from subheadings, and cross-references to and from acronyms. 

General Cross-References

Beyond redirecting to specific entries, cross-references can also redirect to a larger category. For example, “Canada… See also specific prime ministers” or “periodic table… See also specific elements.” This works best when readers can reasonably be expected to know who or what might be included in that category, and if there are several headings within that category, leading to a long list if all hits are included. 

If there are only a few possible cross-references, then I think it is better to list them individually. A general cross-reference implies several potential arrays, and if that is not the case, better to be upfront with the reader and not unintentionally mislead. Similarly, if the audience may not be familiar with the category, a general cross-reference could be a dead end rather than a portal.

I do use general cross-references if the above two conditions are met, but I don’t use them very often.  

Cross-References from Subheadings

Cross-references can also be attached to subheadings, rather than being placed at either the beginning or end of the array. This approach is discussed in the NISO Z39.4-2021 indexing criteria, released in 2021, which is when I became more aware of the practice.

I do sometimes include cross-references from subheadings. There are times when that makes the most sense, given the relationship between cross-reference and (sub)heading. Some indexers are proponents of placing cross-references at the subheading level, I think under the rationale that the more granular the placement, the clearer the relationship. There may also be the assumption that readers will be expecting or searching for certain subheadings, even if the information is actually elsewhere in the index.

While I agree that the relationship between cross-reference and (sub)heading should be clear, I also think that arrays should be easy to scan. I also think that given how indexes are typically written, most readers have been trained, through use, to look for cross-references at either the beginning or end of arrays. So while cross-references at the subheading level does have a place, I’m not convinced it is always or often the best choice.

I’ve noticed two problems in how cross-references from subheadings can be used. The first is that cross-references can become buried. They can be more difficult to spot because they are surrounded by other subheadings and locators. 

The second problem is that the array can feel chopped up, especially if multiple subheadings within the array are cross-references. This is often a scenario of cross-references such as, “financial planning: accountants (see accountants); pensions (see pensions); taxes (see taxes)….” For me, that kind of repetition takes up more space and is difficult to scan, especially if interspersed with locators. I think it takes up less space, is easier to scan, and the relationship between heading and cross-reference is still clear if all of the cross-references are gathered together at the end of the array, as in, “financial planning…See also accountants; pensions; taxes.”

So when do I use cross-references from a subheading? I am more likely if there is additional information I want to alert the reader to, as in, “financial planning: accountants and, 34-35, 64, 68 (see also accountants)….” In that scenario, the subheading is necessary for the locators specific to that relationship, and there is additional information elsewhere that I think readers might also want to know. But even then, balancing against potentially burying the cross-reference, I may still place the cross-reference at the end.

Index format can also play a role. Cross-references from subheadings are more likely to be buried and be difficult to scan in run-in format, where there are no visual breaks between subheadings. These problems are less noticeable when using indented format. So when considering where to place subheadings, also consider the impact that format may have on the reading experience.

Cross-References To and From Acronyms

Cross-references can also be used with acronyms. If, for example, there is an entry for “Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),” should there be a corresponding entry for “AEC. See Atomic Energy Commission”?

When I first began indexing, I was meticulous about making sure that headings with acronyms were either double-posted or cross-referenced. I think I saw that somewhere as part of indexing best practices. Until I received pushback from an author. The book was on the health care system in Nova Scotia. It contained so many acronyms. The author pointed out that all of the duplicate arrays made the index far too long and difficult to use, and that most of the acronyms sorted near the spelled-out names anyway. I had another look at the index and decided that the author was right. Since then, I’ve mostly stopped double-posting or including cross-references from acronyms. I don’t think it is necessary.

I do have two exceptions to that rule. The first is if the full name and acronym don’t sort close together. A few years later, I indexed a different book on the health care system in Mexico. Again, a lot of acronyms. This time, I believe the acronyms corresponded to the Spanish name of the organization but the spelled-out name was the English translation. For example, “National Commission for Medical Arbitration (CONAMED).” No relationship between the acronym and full term, and so double-posting or cross-references was important to serve readers searching either way.

My second exception is if I know or suspect that readers are more likely to search for the acronym, or if I’m honestly not sure which way readers will search. In a recent index, the author almost exclusively referred to a number of companies by their acronyms. I’m not sure if those companies are commonly known by their acronyms, but I figure anyone reading the book will probably think of the acronym first, so for those, I decided to either double-post or include a cross-reference. For example, “AEP (American Electric Power)” and “American Electric Power (AEP).” 

As I mentioned above, cross-references are versatile. They reflect that an index is multi-dimensional. An index is more than a list that begins at A and ends with Z. Rather, an index is an interwoven series of entries and arrays which can require navigational aids. Cross-references are the primary means by which to redirect readers to the right place and to additional information.

As a very brief introduction, cross-references are like signposts that redirect readers to a different array in the index. Cross-references can either be See references (“aubergine. See eggplant”) or See also references (“Brassica, 34, 56-57, 63. See also cabbage”).

From General to Specific

Perhaps the most common scenario is to direct readers from general information to specific information. This is especially true if the more specific array has subheadings. Instead of double-posting or sub-subheadings, redirecting readers can be more space efficient and easier to read.

One way to think about the levels of information in a book and index is as a cascade. Information flows down, from most broad to most specific. Cross-references usually move in that direction too. To give an example, a book I recently indexed is about the key chemical elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. There is a brief discussion about chemical elements as a whole, and so I’ve included cross-references from the general (elements, chemical) to the specific (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). 

From Specific to General

Can cross-references go in the opposite direction? I don’t want to say never, because it can happen, but I think it is less common. My assumption is that broader terms may be easier to remember, and if readers want to find the broader term, they would have started there anyway. So while I often create cross-references from the general to specific, following the cascade of information, I usually don’t make those cross-references reciprocal.

One exception is if the general term is the preferred term. Going back to the book on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, fertilizer is a significant subject. For the most part, the discussion is about mineral fertilizers (also known as synthetic fertilizers). But while the terms mineral and synthetic fertilizers are defined, they are not actually used a whole lot in the text. Rather, it is implied that “fertilizer” usually means mineral fertilizer. Similarly, I suspect most readers will first search for “fertilizer.” So while I do include main entries for mineral and synthetic fertilizers (mostly for their definitions), I primarily use those entries to cross-reference to fertilizer.

Reciprocal Cross-references

As I mentioned, I don’t often include reciprocal cross-references from specific to general terms. But reciprocal cross-references are important in their own right. I usually use them for related headings that have equal weight. 

By equal weight, I mean that they are at about the same level of granularity or importance. This can include synonyms. Both arrays contain subheadings and/or locators, and readers searching for one may reasonably be interested in the other.

For example, a reader searching for the term “liberty” may also be interested in “freedom.” Facebook, the social media platform, should probably be linked to its parent company, Meta, and vice versa. Terms which belong to the same category can also be linked together with reciprocal cross-references. For example, an index with arrays for electrons, neutrons, and protons could include cross-references between all three terms. 

Preferred Terms

Reciprocal cross-references work best when both arrays contain searchable information. If only one array contains locators, or if there is otherwise a clear preference for one term over others, then a See cross-reference is needed to direct readers to the preferred term.

Preferred terms can come about for a number of reasons. There may be enough locators to warrant subheadings, and so a preferred term is chosen to gather the discussion in one place. The author and text may also emphasize one term over another. Perhaps a certain term is more inclusive or better reflects current usage. Whatever the reason, a See cross-reference anticipates that readers might look elsewhere and points readers in the right direction. 

Cross-References versus Double-Posts

Synonymous terms can raise the question of whether it is better to double-post. If “feelings” and “emotions” are both used in the text, are used in the same way, and used about the same number of times each—they carry about equal weight—then why not double-post under both instead of using cross-references? 

Double-posts and cross-references are like indexing twins. They both serve to provide alternative entry points, and there are situations in which double-posts can be the better option. Instead of sending readers off in a new direction, readers can find the relevant locators right where they are. In the above example, there are times when I have double-posted something like “feelings and emotions” and “emotions and feelings.”

My general rule of thumb is to double-post if there are no subheadings and to use a cross-reference if there are subheadings. Subheadings take up more space, and so it is more space efficient to redirect.

The other reason to choose cross-references is if there is a preferred term. Synonymous and related terms do not always have equal weight. If the text clearly prefers a term, or if a term is clearly preferable for another reason, then that should be reflected in the index

I’ll stop here for now. I’ll write again in a couple of weeks to discuss general cross-references, cross-references from subheadings, and cross-references to and from acronyms.

For now, keep in mind that cross-references are a versatile and powerful tool for shaping how readers navigate the index. If you can map out the structure of the index, with all information in its place, cross-references are the signposts that points readers to where they need to be.

It is a big book, and it is taking a while to get through. It is also not the only large volume I’ve indexed this year. I feel like I’ve done more than usual, including an Oxford handbook on Baptist studies, an edited collection on Black Canadian art and literature, and a biography of Canadian poet Margaret Avison. These are books that are the equivalent of two or three regular-length volumes. 

Large books can be challenging to index. I have a theory that the length of the index grows exponentially with the length of the book (while, maybe not quite exponentially, but the length does grow), because the longer the book, the more details there are to index, the more locators there are, and the more likely subheadings are needed. Subheadings take up more space and take more time to write and edit, and so the work goes on and on. Also, the larger the book, the more there is to keep in mind. I need to remind myself to reset my expectations for how long the index will take. 

I still want to complete the index efficiently and as quickly as possible, even if the overall number of days and weeks is longer. I’ve been reflecting on what it is I do that is different compared to indexing a shorter book. This is what I’ve gathered so far:

• I write more notes for myself, such as brief summaries for each chapter. Because there is so much more to remember, I don’t want to forget what the beginning of the book was about by the time I reach the end. These notes can also help me see the overarching storyline and themes running through the book.
• I slow down and consciously remind myself to connect back to the big picture. With so many pages to get through, the temptation is to rush and to focus on picking up the easy entries—the low-hanging fruit—of people, places, reactors, chemical elements, etc…Those details are important and need to be picked up, but why are they important? What is the larger discussion or story? I need to make sure that I am creating headings and subheadings at those broader levels too, which means slowing down and understanding what all this is actually about.
• I write subheadings at a broader level. I still pick up plenty of smaller details, but I think broader subheadings are both easier to understand and navigate, and can help keep the array at a manageable length. For main characters and topics, which are going to have a lot of subheadings anyway, indexing less granular may be the difference between forty subheadings versus sixty or eighty, for example. Forty subheadings is still a lot, while still being easier to scan. 
• As I mentioned, broader subheadings can also be easier to navigate. This is because they encompass more and clearly express the larger context. Say a person is involved in constructing the National Research Experimental (NRX) reactor, is quoted reflecting on the reactor, and is also present for the reactor’s meltdown. A more granular approach would be to have separate subheadings for each of those three elements, which are arguably distinct. But in a large array, those three subheadings may sort apart from each other and a reader may not see all of them. Three distinct subheadings also take up more space (see point above). Better, I think, for a single subheading at a broader level, “National Research Experimental (NRX) reactor and,” to capture all of those discussions. The details of construction and meltdown can still be delineated as subheadings under the reactor itself. 
• While indexing at a broader level, I still want main headings and subheadings to be clear and specific. Indexing at a less granular level is not synonymous with being vague. If I go back, say when editing the index, and I don’t know what the subheading is referring to, then I can’t expect the reader to know. The meaning needs to be clear. Which reactor? Which relationship? Which concept or discovery? I try to make my first pass as clear as possible, so I have less work on my second pass and so I don’t leave myself confused when I come back around again.
• Lastly, I want to acknowledge that I use subcontractors on this large projects. I usually ask subcontractors to pick up the names of people, and perhaps also other common elements, such as, for the Avison biography, titles of poems and other works. Having a subcontractor handle these aspects frees up my headspace to focus on the subject entries and the overall structure of the index. It also helps me to get through my own draft more quickly, because I have less to pick up. So many thanks to the indexers I work with. With so much material to get through, I find it can make a noticeable difference.

In one sense, indexing a large book is no different from indexing any other book. I still pick up the same types of entries and my process doesn’t change too much. On the other hand, everything that makes indexing a regular monograph difficult is magnified simply because there is more of it. There are more details, more entries, more subheadings, more cross-references. I find writing the index requires a bit more planning, more notes, and more patience. Because the big picture is so big, it can be difficult to focus on, and so I need to make an even more conscious effort to keep referring back to what the book is about.

The big picture—the story that is being told—is the underlying aboutness, which needs to be visible in the index. I don’t want to get lost while indexing, and I don’t want the reader to be lost either. I need to slow down, think through my decisions, make sure I am seeing as clearer as I can in that moment, so that the reader can hopefully see through me.

Today’s question is about granularity:

How should I judge what level of granular information the reader will be looking for? Too many subheadings with the same locator is a red flag. Is there any other good marker? How do I know if it is too granular, or not granular enough? 

That is an excellent question. Thank you for asking.

I suspect this is a common issue that many indexers face. Part of the challenge is that the answer is so often, “It depends!” It depends on the audience, on the subject matter, on the type of book, and how much space is reserved for the index. Because there are so many factors involved, I’m not sure if I can give a satisfactory answer, but I’m going to give it a try.

What is Granularity?

To begin with, what is granularity, anyway?

Granularity refers to the level of detail. In indexes, this is how detailed entries and arrays are. The level of granularity can vary, from large or wide-angle details to small, specific details. When discussing how granular an entry or index should be—whether it is too granular or not granular enough—this is what we are talking about, the level of granularity. 

As I discuss in my book, I like to conceptualize granularity in terms of the hierarchy of information. Most books contain multiple levels of information, which can be mirrored in the index. At the top—the broadest level of information—is the metatopic, which is what the book as a whole is about. Below that are the supermain discussions, which are the main arguments or points which compose the metatopic. Below those are the regular discussions, which continue to break down the main discussions. At the bottom are the small, specific details which further support and illustrate. Each level is a different level of granularity. 

My view is that all levels of the hierarchy of information should be in the index. A well-written index should be balanced. It is not a question of finding the single correct level of granularity, but of creating entry points for all levels. 

Indexing at multiple levels of granularity provides a number of benefits. It serves different readers, both those searching for specific details and those searching at a broader level. Multiple levels of granularity can also facilitate navigation through the index, whether through nesting more granular subheadings under broader main headings or cross-references from broader to specific arrays. Including both broad and specific headings and subheadings also helps readers—and indexers—avoid getting lost in the weeds. Where I’ve seen granularity go wrong is when the index is primarily a collection of specific details, such that it is difficult to see how the details relate to each other or why they are relevant. Small, specific details can definitely be relevant and important to index, but they also need context, and readers also need context. Indexing at all levels of granularity provides that. 

Telling Stories

I like to think about indexing as telling a story. Each array encapsulates what the book has to say about that particular subject. Especially if the array contains subheadings, the subheadings need to work together to present what the book has to say.

Granularity can factor in a couple of different ways.

One is the appropriate length of ranges. A common rule of thumb is to add subheadings if a discussion extends beyond five pages. This is generally good advice, as searching more than five pages can be a big ask for a reader. But what if the range is seven or eight pages? What if there are no clear points within that range to differentiate into meaningful subheadings? What is space is tight? What if one or more pages are mostly filled with figures? Instead of treating those five pages has a hard limit, I treat it as a guideline. My first goal is to see the whole discussion in context. Sometimes, indexing to the full discussion, even if that means a slightly longer range, is enough. A broader level of granularity points readers to all they need to know.

Another way to consider granularity and storytelling is to consider how broad or specific subheadings can be. If the array is for a supermain discussion, some of the subheadings should probably be for regular discussions. Subheadings can be used to nest levels of granularity. 

To be clear, I am not suggesting that all subheadings need to be of the same granularity or that all subheadings need to be one level below the main heading. Subheadings can serve different purposes, and different types of subheadings can coexist within the same array. It is okay to mix in a few specific details or relationships to other supermain discussions, for example. What I am saying is to pay attention to the story that the array is telling, which is most clearly told in terms of the main points made about the subject and in terms of the relationships between that subject and other subjects. These main points and relationships can often be mapped to levels within the hierarchy of information, which is to say, levels of granularity. 

Spreading Out Granularity

So an index can contain different levels of granularity, and levels of granularity can be used to tell stories and indicate relationships.

Entries and arrays for different levels of granularity can also be spread out throughout the index. It is not always necessary to fit all possible subheadings under a main heading.

Say the array is for a supermain discussion. The book  makes seven main points—regular discussions—about the supermain discussion. Each of those points can become a subheading, which combined provides a solid overview of the subject. Each of those seven points can be further broken down into specific people quoted and illustrations made, but do those people and illustrations need to be in this array? I would suggest not. Keeping this array at a broader level of granularity allows it to be clear and compact. Readers will still find those smaller details if they read through to those pages. Those details can also be standalone entries elsewhere in the index, still findable if readers are looking for them specifically.

I hesitate to be too prescriptive here because every book, index, and array is different. Sometimes arrays do function as a place to gather certain types of detail and it is important to get every mention. But my point remains: levels of detail can be spread out. All information should be findable in the index; it does not all need to be findable in the same place. Play around with how granularity is distributed throughout the index. What can be double-posted? What doesn’t need to be double-posted? How can cross-references be used? What is the function, or story, of each array? 

Audience and Type of Book

The level of granularity can also be affected by the audience and type of book.

I know the common advice is that trade books can be more lightly indexed than scholarly books. I think that is true-ish. My tendency is to write comprehensive, detailed indexes for both trade and scholarly books. Perhaps better to say that scholarly books tend to contain more detail, which lends itself to a more detailed index, while trade books can—but not always—be written in broader strokes. When indexing, match the level of granularity to the book.

How the book is written, and the subject matter, can also affect granularity. Some books are written as broad overviews, whether covering a wide time period, or multiple people, countries, or organizations. For these, keeping subheadings at a broader level can be helpful to prevent the reader—and the indexer—from getting lost in the details. Similarly, if an array has a lot of subheadings—say for a main character or key organization—keeping subheadings at a broader level can be a way to cut down on the number of subheadings needed. Subheadings should still be clear and specific—indexing at a broader level should not be mistaken for being vague. Rather, indexing at a broader level means pointing towards the larger point or context. Specific detail may be better suited for standalone entries. 

How books will be used can also impact granularity. Reference books, for which the index will be a primary entry point, should contain detailed indexes, with lots of subheadings and entry points. Scholarly books often fall into this category as well. Books that are written more as a light or casual read are probably fine with a less granular approach. 

Space Constraints

Space can be a real issue for some indexes. There are not enough lines for the index you want to write. This affects granularity. I think it is still important to try to include entries at all levels of granularity, but if space is a constraint, some entries will need to be cut and compromises made.

If space is tight, I tend to prioritize the big picture. I want the supermain and regular discussions to be clearly present. These are the main points that the book makes, and in my view, the most relevant for readers to find.

Indexing at a broader level can also help save space because the broader entry can incorporate or cover multiple smaller entries. Say there is a discussion about railways, which includes mentions of multiple railway companies. In an ideal index, both “railways” and the specific companies are picked up, but if space is a constraint, I choose “railways” and leave out the specific companies. Readers will still find those companies if they search under “railways,” whereas if I only include entries for the specific companies, readers will have a harder time seeing the whole picture. 

Another consideration is how close or far an entry is from the metatopic. The closer to the metatopic, the more willing I am to keep entries for specific details. The further apart, the more likely I am to cut and instead rely on entries at a broad level. 

When space is tight, I also tend to use fewer subheadings and I allow longer strings of locators. I still try to include subheadings if more than ten or twelve locators, as I don’t want undifferentiated strings to be too long, but subheadings take up space and I’d rather squeeze in more main entries. This is another way to be less granular, by removing the clarity that subheadings can provide. Not ideal, but it can be a worthwhile compromise.

Finding the right level of granularity can be tough. The first challenge is learning to see the different levels. Once you can identify them, it becomes easier to zoom in and out, and to decide how different levels should fit together and be distributed.

To close, I want to reiterate that there is no single, perfect level of granularity that an index should be at. Indexes should contain multiple levels of granularity, and the right mix of levels will depend on the audience, the subject matter, how the book is written, and how much space the index has to play with. But once you can see the different levels, and to see the levels as tools or as building blocks, granularity can be a valuable lens through which to see and construct an index.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about how subheadings can sometimes be repeated and reused throughout an index. This can be valuable to readers, to signal that the same discussion reappears in different contexts or that different people are involved in the same project. This can also ease the cognitive burden of indexing and save time for the indexer. Subheadings do not need to be reinvented for every array.

As a caveat, repeating and reusing subheadings is not going to work for every index. As with any indexing strategy or technique, the first step is to determine if it is applicable. That said, I find this is a helpful strategy to keep on hand.

Repeating and Reusing Subheadings

Subheadings can be repeated and reused in two senses.

The first is to keep in mind or have written down a set of default subheadings that you can draw upon. These subheadings match common discussions or types of material, and so when those discussions come up when indexing, the subheading is readily at hand to plug in.

Some of mine include the following. Depending on the types of books you index, your list may be different.

about

background

education

establishment

introduction

marriage and family

scholarship on

The second scenario for repeating subheadings is project-specific. I find this most often happens for books with significant, overlapping elements. The overlap means that a subheading is likely needed to indicate that relationship. If overlap is extensive, subheadings are likely be reused.

To give an example, earlier this year I indexed Citizens, Scholars, and Friends: Women in the Canadian Association for Adult Education (1935-1965), by Leona M. English (University of Toronto Press, 2026). The book is about the people in the CAAE, especially women, in the context of a number of significant endeavors undertaken by the CAAE. One of those is the journal Food for Thought. I used the subheading “Food for Thought and” under nineteen different people.

To give another example, a few years ago I indexed Decolonizing Independence: Statecraft in Nigeria’s First Republic and Israeli Interventions, by Lynn Schler (Michigan State University Press, 2022). That book discussed overlapping regions, political parties, and politicians. I decided to repeat subheadings across those arrays to give a sense of those interconnections. For example, for the party Action Group and it’s leader, Obafemi Awolowo, the subheadings “Israeli relations and” and “joint corporations and” are repeated, as both the party and leader are involved.

Tailoring Subheadings

When repeating and reusing subheadings, one option is to copy and paste, which is essentially double-posting. That is what I did in the two examples above. But in other cases, while there is overlap that lends itself to reuse, the overlap is not exact. The subheading may need to be tailored.

Going back to the Decolonizing Independence example, the locators for “Israeli relations and” don’t quite match between Action Group and Obafemi Awolowo. Yes, both dealt with Israel and often together, but there are a few places where only one or the other is discussed. So while the subheading can be repeated, locators may vary somewhat.

How the subheading is phrased may also need to be adjusted. Again, looking at Action Group and Awolowo, I used the subheadings, “Action Group (AG): leadership crisis and tensions between Akintola and Awolowo” and “Awolowo, Obafemi: Action Group leadership crisis and conflict with Akintola.” Both subheadings refer to the same incident—a leadership crisis within Action Group and tensions with Akintola—and both use the same key terms, but the terms are rearranged to fit their respective main headings. This still counts as reuse, albeit modified.

Double-Posting vs. Asymmetric

Another consideration when repeating subheadings is, do the subheadings need to be double-posted or can the reuse be asymmetric? By asymmetric, I mean that the subheadings are not mirrored in the overlapping arrays.

In the Decolonizing Independence example, the subheadings are essentially double-posted. While taking into account that the locators and phrasing are sometimes tailored, many of the same subheadings can be found under two or more arrays. This reflects that many of the actors are involved in the same projects and events.

In contrast, many of the repeated subheadings in the CAAE are asymmetric. While the subheading “Food for Thought and” appears under nineteen different people, the array for Food for Thought does not contain a reciprocal list of nineteen people. This has to do with the story that each array is telling. Part of the story, for each person, is the projects they were involved in. For Food for Thought, in contrast, the story is about its establishment, growth, and end; key editors; and key topics and contemporary issues that the journal addressed. While I included subheadings for the key editors, a list of everyone involved would add clutter rather than being helpful.

Connecting to the Larger Story

Taking a step back, the single most important point about subheadings I feel like I keep repeating is the need to connect to the larger context. What is this subheading about? How does it connect to the main heading? Why is it relevant?

The same is true when repeating and reusing subheadings, with the addition that repeating subheadings also reflect broad overlaps within the text. These are relationships that can and should be highlighted at different points. When considering whether subheadings should be double-posted or asymmetric, again, how do these arrays overlap? What is the nature of the relationship? What is the larger story to be told?

To better see if there are overlapping elements and relationships, consider sketching a mind map, as I discussed last month. Take a step back from the index to see the major components and how they relate. The overlap could be specific actors, as in Decolonizing Independence, or the overlap could be more in terms of elements, such as people and projects in the CAAE example.  

It may take some practice to think about books in terms of overlapping elements and to be able to see and formulate repeatable and reusable subheadings. I think it is a strategy worth developing. It can remove some of the guesswork out of subheadings while serving readers by indicating multiple entry points from different angles. 

PS. I discuss the Decolonizing Independence example more extensively in my book, Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide, in the chapter on index structure. Check that out if you want to read more.