Article
April 1, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

Format: Pulling the Index Together

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been exploring the components of an array—main headings and subheadings, locators, and cross-references. It’s time to now look at how these are all held together.

Formatting the index, by which I mean either run-in or indented format, along with punctuation, has to do with the visual structure of the index. It is what the reader sees on the page. An index is not written like conventional prose, with complete sentences, capitalization, and closing punctuation. Headings and subheadings are instead single words or short phrases which nonetheless need to be strung together in a coherent way that indicates relationships and is easy to search.

There are two ways that indexes are typically formatted: run-in and indented. Run-in format is more space efficient and common in scholarly books, where indexes tend to be dense and space can be at a premium. Indented format is easier to scan, while also being more spread out, taking up more space.

When I write an index, the software I use, Cindex, allows me to easily switch back and forth between run-in and indented format. I find this a huge advantage because I prefer to index in indented format, which is, I suppose, my implicit acknowledgment that indented format is easier to work with. Once I have finished editing the index, one of my last steps, if the press requires run-in format, is to switch the format and export.

The difference between run-in and indented looks like this:

Run-in format

coffee: café culture and, 35, 64-66, 132; comparison to tea, 52-55; fair trade, 22, 32, 58, 89-90;

geopolitics and, 43, 78; industrialization, 33-34, 88, 91-93; roasting, 43, 53, 67; varieties, 29,

45-47. See also caffeine; tea

Indented format

coffee

café culture and, 35, 64-66, 132

fair trade, 22, 32, 58, 89-90

geopolitics and, 43, 78

industrialization, 33-34, 88, 91-93

roasting, 43, 53, 67

tea, comparison to, 52-55

varieties, 29, 45-47 

See also caffeine; tea

As you can see, in run-in format the main heading, subheadings, and cross-references are strung together, one after the other. The main heading is separated from the subheadings by a  colon, and subheadings are separated from each other by semicolons, with a period between the final subheading and the cross-references. This format allows the array to utilize the full length of the line; once the line is full, the array runs down onto the next line. Subsequent lines are indented to differentiate between arrays. This is what makes run-in format more space efficient, though having all of the lines run together does mean that the reader needs to scan more carefully. 

In indented format, in contrast, each element of the array has its own line. The main heading is at the top with all subheadings following below. The subheadings are indented to differentiate between the heading and subheadings, and to differentiate between arrays. The cross-references, in this example, are placed at the very end, also indented. Because each line is indented, less punctuation is needed—no colons, semicolons, or periods. With the subheadings stacked on top of each other, the subheadings are easier to scan, though also taking up more lines.

For both run-in and indented formats, commas are used to separate headings and subheadings from locators, and locators from each other. 

In my experience, some publishers, including scholarly, see the value of indented format and are committed to making sure that there is enough space. Indented format also works well for an index that doesn’t have many subheadings, as the space difference between run-in and indented will then be negligible. Otherwise, if the index contains a lot of subheadings and space is an issue, use run-in format to squeeze in as many lines as possible. Sometimes, if I know the publisher is open to either and I’m not sure how the index will fit, I’ll submit the index is both formats for the publisher to try and decide.

A few more points:

  • Capitalization should follow the text, and generally is only for proper nouns. I believe it used to be a convention to always capitalize headings and subheadings, as in a sentence, but that convention seems to have passed. The exception are the See and See also of cross-references, which are capitalized since they typically follow a period. 
  • Adjust how subheadings are phrased, depending on the format. In run-in format, because subheadings run together, I try to ensure that the subheadings read naturally, without inversion or extra punctuation to chop up the phrase. While I still try to lead with the key term, there is already so much punctuation that I don’t want to make the array even more complicated. In indented format, in contrast, because the stacked subheadings are easier to scan, always lead with the key term. This may require inverting the phrase. For example, see the subheadings “comparison to tea/tea, comparison to” in the examples above. This difference also affects how the subheadings are sorted—another detail to pay attention to. The goal, as always, is to make the subheadings both easy to read and easy to find. 
  • If you use dedicated indexing software, like Cindex, you don’t need to pay too much attention to formatting. The software does it for you. You do need to make sure, though, that you have chosen the correct settings. Having the software handle the formatting is a huge timesaver and frees up cognitive space to focus on analyzing the text and writing the entries. When I first started indexing, I typed everything out in a Word document and needed to manually create the format. That was an excellent way to intimately learn how format works, and I’m also thankful I don’t need to do that anymore. 

The format is how the index appears on the page. It helps to pull all of the entries and arrays together in a way that is easy to read and search. Run-in and indented formats are both common and both have their pros and cons. While indexing software typically handles the formatting automatically, as the indexer, be aware of the options and of how the format affects how entries are written and how the index fits the reserved space. How the index appears on the page is also important, alongside the contents of the index, and you may find yourself called upon to advise the client on the best format for their particular index.

Article
March 4, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

Cognitive Load and Indexing Oxford UP Titles

My original plan for today was to write about indexing Oxford University Press (OUP) titles, of which I recently indexed two. I will still reflect on OUP, but as I was writing this, I realized that my main issue with OUP’s system is its impact on cognitive load. So partway through I’m going to take a little detour to discuss the cognitive impacts of indexing.

The OUP System

Oxford University Press is unique among publishers, so far as I know, in that it uses a paragraph ID system for indexing. Each paragraph is assigned a unique ID, for example C2P34, which stands for chapter 2, paragraph 34. Each section is also assigned an ID (for example, C3S2), as is each figure (C4F5). In the index, these are used as locators instead of page numbers. When the proofs are finalized, OUP converts these IDs into the appropriate page numbers and ranges.

For me, this system is sort of halfway between traditional back-of-the-book indexing and embedded indexing. I can use the paragraph IDs with my preferred software, Cindex, and I don’t need to fiddle around with embedding tags into the proofs or manuscript. The paragraph IDs also allow the press to output the index for both print and ebook versions. 

Are paragraph IDs the best of both worlds? Depends who you ask, perhaps. I suspect some indexers already comfortable with embedding would prefer that OUP fully make that transition, and maybe embedded is better than this hybrid approach. I don’t write embedded indexes, so I can’t compare. Personally, I appreciate being able to use Cindex, though the IDs are not as easy to use as page numbers.

I found it an interesting experience indexing two OUP titles back-to-back. Despite freelancing for about twelve years, I have very little experience with OUP. I haven’t avoided them, per se, but neither have I actively sought out their books. I simply haven’t received many queries, at least until these last few months, when I probably received as many queries as I have in the previous twelve years. So it’s been a crash course for me, figuring out how best to handle the paragraph IDs.

OUP’s indexing instructions are comprehensive, explaining how they want the paragraph IDs used and formatted. So I won’t discuss all of that in detail. Instead, I want to discuss some of the challenges I had, along with some strategies that helped me through.

Impacts on Cognitive Load

The most significant challenge I had with the paragraph IDs was its impact on cognitive load.

Cognitive load is “the amount of information our working memory can process at any given time.” Working memory is the “small amount of information that can be held in mind and used in the execution of cognitive tasks.” These are the pieces of information that you are actively trying to keep in mind while performing a task. 

Cognitive load and working memory are relevant concepts for indexing. When writing an index, I am identifying information in the text, deciding if it is indexable, determining how the information relates to other pieces of information, and then adding the entry to the index. All of that is happening within my working memory. Add in that I may read the entire paragraph before I make a decision, or I may read a few paragraphs ahead, and my working memory is suddenly bursting with potential entries waiting for me to decide whether or not—and how—to add to the index.

This is why I pick up entries as I see them. At most, I’ll read ahead a few pages before going back to add the entries I’ve identified. I am aware that if I read too far ahead, I begin to forget the specific details that I previously noticed. So I want to capture those entries right away and make space in my working memory for new information. If you are someone who prefers to mark up the text and type the entries later, underlining terms and making notes in the margins fulfills the same function. You are making notes about your decisions to refer back to later, to make room in your working memory.

When using page numbers for locators, I’ve gained a sense for the limits of my working memory and for when the cognitive load becomes too great. What I did not anticipate from indexing OUP titles is how much more the paragraph IDs added to my cognitive load. 

The paragraph IDs added to my cognitive load in a few ways:

  • Paragraph IDs are longer and more complicated than page numbers. An ID which contains both numbers and letters is more to scan, remember, and type, compared to a digits-only page number. 
  • There are far more paragraphs than pages. A typical book may have 200 pages and maybe 600 paragraphs, assuming three paragraphs per page. That is a significant increase in the number of unique locators to track and ensure accuracy.
  • Ranges are more common and lengthier. A range can occur on the same page, as in C1P34-C1P35. Or the page span 84-88 may be represented, in paragraphs, as C3P43-C3P56. Because ranges are so prevalent, I found myself constantly scanning ahead, even on the same page, to see if I needed to add a range. For ranges that spanned a few pages, I found myself more focused on identifying the correct paragraph IDs than I was on the contents of the paragraphs. Perhaps I haven’t acclimatized yet to paragraph IDs, but determining a range that spans 14 paragraphs somehow felt like more work than a range that spans 5 pages, even though both ranges are for the same amount of text.
  • Navigating the PDF proofs is more difficult with paragraph IDs, especially when I’m editing the index and want to refer back to the text to double-check an entry. The locator does not tell me the page, and so I can’t use my usual keystroke shortcut to jump from page to page in the PDF reader. Instead, I need to use the search function. As I mentioned above, typing the ID is more work, as it contains both letters and numbers. Searching for the ID also means that I can’t use the search function to simultaneously search for whichever name or term I want to check, which also makes searching the PDF more cumbersome.
  • Indexing endnotes is more tedious and time consuming. In OUP’s system, the note number is appended to the paragraph ID where the note originally appears. As in, C1P45 n.27. This means going back to the chapter and searching to find the in-text note number so I know which paragraph ID to use, while trying to remember what the note was about in the first place.

Tips for Handling Paragraph IDs

So I’m not a huge fan of OUP’s paragraph IDs. They are more work, though is it really so much more work? Yes and no.

A single paragraph ID is not that big of a deal. It maybe adds a few seconds extra to the work. The problem is that the book contains hundreds of paragraph ID. The index likely contains at least a thousand locators. All of these add up, to the point where I, at least, start noticing that the work is taking longer and that I’m mentally juggling more than usual.

I am still able to use Cindex, my preferred software, and my indexing process mostly remains the same. But I did have to reset my expectations for how long the work would take, and I made a couple of adjustments to how I worked.

  • Take a deep breath and accept that the work will take a little longer. For me, this was especially true when editing the index, due to how awkward it was to navigate the PDF proofs.
  • Multiple passes. When drafting, I found it helpful to make multiple passes, going over the same paragraphs or section a couple of times. One pass would be to determine the broader discussions and where ranges needed to begin and end. Occasionally, if relevant, I used a section ID for the entire section rather than fiddling with a range. Another pass would be to pick up smaller details, like names, that didn’t need a range. This isn’t a new strategy for me, as I often do this when the text is particularly dense or confusing and I want to have a better understanding of the text before I begin typing up entries. But due to how focused I was on ranges and ensuring accuracy with the paragraph IDs, I used this strategy a lot more to make sure I was picking up both the content and the locators. There was too much to focus on in one pass.
  • Duplicate the endnotes. It was time consuming and frustrating to flip back and forth between the endnotes and the chapter, trying to find the paragraph where the note is found while also trying to remember what the note is about. Much easier to create a duplicate PDF of the endnotes (printing the notes would also work), so that I can see and compare the notes and chapter is parallel. 
  • Search for partial IDs. When searching the PDF for paragraph IDs, I found it usually worked just as well to omit the initial C. So, to search for 3P34 instead of C3P34. A small detail, but I felt like it was a tiny bit quicker. 
  • Charge a little extra. For the extra time and work, I did charge more for these indexes. I was also upfront with my clients about this. I think it is fair to be compensated for extra work. 

Will I index an OUP title again? Yes. I’m actually in discussions with another potential client.

Will I go out of my way to find OUP titles to index? No.

I do appreciate that OUP wants to include the index in ebooks. And the paragraph IDs are a good approach, in theory. I just wish that the IDs weren’t so awkward to use, and that there aren’t so many of them. Indexing is already cognitively taxing, and adding to that load isn’t helpful. But with some forewarning and tweaks to my approach, indexing OUP titles is very doable.

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.