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
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 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.