Article
February 18, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

Pointing Readers in the Right Direction

Welcome back to this mini-series on the basic elements of an index.

I’m currently looking at what makes up an entry, which I described as “what this thing is + where to find it.” In my previous post I discussed main headings and subheadings, which form the first part of that equation. Today, I’m writing about the second part, “where to find it,” also known as locators.

Locators are the portion of the entry which tells readers where to find information about the main heading and subheading. They are like directions for the reader to follow. To be effective, locators need to be clear, specific, and accurate. 

There are three points that I want to make about locators.

The first is that a locator can be anything. Page numbers are usually the default locator, especially when indexing books, but other forms of locators can also be used, such as paragraph or policy numbers. The only criteria is that the locator is appropriate for the material being indexed.

My second point is that the locator needs to be clear and specific. Readers should understand how the locator relates to the text, and should be able to easily use the locator to find the desired information.

To give a few examples, page numbers are often augmented when referring to figures and tables or to footnotes and endnotes. For figures and tables, the page number may be placed in italics or bold, or have a fig. or t appended. For notes, the note number is usually appended to the page number, as in 253n43 or 265nn14-15. These allow the reader to more quickly pinpoint the information on the page.

For a cumulative index for a journal or multivolume series, the locator should probably include a volume or issue number alongside the page number, as in VII.343. For a policy document that I update every couple of years, I use unique policy numbers instead of page numbers, as in 20.2.1.2. These policy numbers both direct readers to the specific policy more quickly (especially if there are ten or more policies listed per page), and makes updating the index a whole lot easier as I don’t need to worry about the pagination shifting as policies are added, removed, and revised. 

When augmenting page numbers or using something different for a locator, it may be helpful to explain your choice in a headnote so readers understand how to interpret the locator. Page numbers, being the default, don’t need to be explained.

To give a few examples of locators:

conduction, 83, 84fig. 

convection, 85, 84t, 234n43

safety protocols, 2.1.13.4, 3.3.1.12, 3.4.3.6

thermodynamics, VI.343, IX.23

The last point I want to make is that the number of locators in an array should be reasonable for readers to search. As a general rule of thumb, no more than 6-10 undifferentiated locators. Larger arrays, with more than ten locators, should have subheadings to sort the references and make it easier for the reader to identify the relevant aspects of the subject. The concern is that searching through a long string of undifferentiated locators is time-consuming and may discourage the reader from finding what they need. Better to set the reader up for success by presenting locators in smaller chunks.

 

When writing an entry, the main heading and, possibly, subheadings, tell readers what the subject is, while the locator tells readers where to find information about that subject. Locators can be anything, and should be clear and specific. The number of locators should also be reasonable for readers to search. Do this, and you are setting your reader up for success.

Article
February 4, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

Telling Readers What This Thing Is

In my last post I wrote about entries and arrays, which I described as the building blocks of an index. I defined an entry as “what this thing is + where to find it.” Today I’m going to expand on “what this thing is,” also known as main headings and subheadings.

The fundamental purpose of an index is to guide readers to the relevant information that the reader is searching for. To do that, the index needs to be clearly written, which begins with the first words that the reader sees. 

Main Headings

The main heading, also known simply as the heading, kicks off the entry. This is the first word or phrase that you see in an entry and array. It is typically a noun, and should be clear and concise. If a longer phrase is needed, the main heading should lead with the most important element. The main heading should also match how the term is used in the text, such as using the same spelling and capitalization. 

The heading should be reflective of both the text and the audience. Is the book discussing cars more generally or electric vehicles specifically? Or both? Will readers be reading this book to learn about the auto industry, new innovations, or specific brands and models? Or all of the above? To give another example, biblical characters such as Matthew, Silas, and Timothy probably don’t need a gloss clarifying their identity in a work of biblical studies to clarify their identities, but these names may be more unfamiliar to readers if they appear in other disciplines. 

Another consideration is whether or not to pluralize main headings. Should it be dog or dogs? Cantaloupe or cantaloupes? To start, be mindful of differences in nuance. Freedom is somewhat different from freedoms, for example. Otherwise, I tend to follow common usage. If a term is commonly pluralized, then I go ahead and make it plural in the index, which I think reads more naturally. 

To give a few examples of main headings:

Acts (biblical book)

Cleveland, Grover

electric vehicles

heat transfer

London (ON)

trade wars, retaliatory

Subheadings

For short arrays containing a handful of locators, a main heading is usually sufficient to specify what this thing is. But more specificity is often needed for topics with extensive discussion (usually when there are more than 6-10 locators) or if there are different aspects that readers would appreciate differentiated.

The subheading is placed after the main heading. Its purpose is to further clarify what this thing is. Because subheadings often differentiate references from one another, there are usually multiple subheadings per array.

Since the subheading is appended, there is more flexibility in how it can be phrased. Depending on the context, the subheading can be either a short word or phrase, or it can be longer and more descriptive.  In all cases, the relationship between the main heading and subheading should be clear. If possible, I try to also lead with the key word, which both affects how the subheadings are alphabetically sorted and, I think, makes it easier for readers to find the subheading as they scan the array. 

For example,

Acts (biblical book): authorship; within biblical canon; commentaries on; Paul within

Cleveland, Grover: first presidency; free-silver issue; legislative achievements; private life between presidential terms; second presidency

heat transfer: conduction; convection

Effective headings and subheadings connect readers to the text. Main headings are the point at which readers encounter the index, and readers should not need to guess what this thing is. The same is true for subheadings, if the reader decides to read further into the array. 

Tell the reader what they need to know. Be specific and concise. Do this, and your index will be well on its way to being excellent.

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.