Article
September 20, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Do’s and Don’ts for Index Force Sorting

Indexing is so often about following the rules, but today I want to write about breaking the rules. Specifically, the alphabetical sort that is often the basis for organizing entries. 

Force-sorting is when an entry is deliberated taken out of alphabetical order and placed elsewhere in the index. This can happen to either main entries or subheadings. Usually the change is subtle, and there should be a reasonable explanation for the move that the reader can understand and that improves the index. 

Force-sorting should also be used sparingly, in my opinion. The convention of alphabetical sort does serve an important purpose, as a way of training users and meeting their expectations for where an entry should fall. So we don’t want to catch readers by surprise and make them confused. Ideally, the force-sorting will be done in a way that they will not even notice, and they will instead enjoy the smoother user experience.

Now, you could say, why not just manipulate the wording or even, possibly, the spelling, of the entry to naturally get the preferred sort? Would that not be better than violating the sort? In some circumstances, perhaps. But I still want the entries to read naturally, and sometimes manipulating word order can lead to awkward constructions that could cause the user to stumble. Of the two, I think force-sorting can sometimes be the lesser of two evils, and if done well, the reader should not even notice.

There are a few situations in which I either commonly force-sort or have seen it done, which I will briefly discuss below. If there are any situations that you use, and which I do not mention, please let me know. I would like to learn.

Logical Order

Sometimes I will have a series of entries that are in correct alphabetical order, but could, in my opinion, make a little more sense if reordered. Say, for example, I have the following main entries:

  • dog collars
  • dog food
  • dogs
  • dog walking 

which I then change to,

  • dogs
  • dog collars
  • dog food
  • dog walking

This allows the most general entry to rise to the top, while the more specific, and related, entries come after. I see this as a way to say to the reader, “Start here with dogs, and then if you want other dog-related stuff, read further.” The first entry could, of course, be a singular dog, which would also sort first, but I think some entries just work better in their plural form, so I am willing to force-sort to get the same effect.

Introductory Subheadings

Another example of force-sorting for a more logical order is one I mentioned in my reflection last week on subheadings. This is to index introductory material about a subject under a subheading like “about,” “approach to,” “introduction,” or “overview,” and force-sort the subheading to the top of the entry. This gives the reader a clear starting point, and I think it makes more sense to put “introduction” at the beginning, rather than buried somewhere in the middle. 

Names

Names can use a lot of force-sorting to get right, as not all names follow the current western conventions. Two main situations come to mind.

I am often asked to force-sort Chinese names, which I think makes a lot of sense. Essentially, this is applying word-by-word sort to the Chinese names while the rest of the index follows letter-by-letter sort. The reason for this is to make sure that all names with the same surname are grouped together instead of interspersed between other entries. This also keeps everyone named Chen separated from those named Cheng, for example. Why not use word-by-word sort for the whole index? I don’t have a great answer, and I did have one client suggest I just use word-by-word. Most of my clients, though, request force-sorting. Perhaps the perception is that Chinese names are an exception to the rule, while readers will still expect the rest of the index to follow letter-by-letter. 

The other scenario with names, which Enid Zafran discussed in her workshop at the ISC/SCI conference, is for names of kings, popes, and others with appellations. In some history books, these lists of names can get quite extensive, and so Enid suggests imposing the order of saints, royalty and popes, and then nobility and other people of lower rank. This provides a measure of grouping throughout the list, and consistency throughout the index. In the following example, you will also notice that I add an element of chronological order to the two popes. 

  • John the Baptist
  • John of Shanghai and San Francisco
  • John (king of England)
  • John XI (pope)
  • John Paul I (pope)
  • John of Gaunt

Works of Authors or Artists

In some cases, a person—whether that be a scholar, poet, fiction writer, artist, or film maker—may have several works discussed. If it is just one or maybe two works, I probably will not force-sort, but if there are several discussed, it can be helpful to gather these at the end of the entry for the reader to easily scan. If there are several subheadings in the entry, this is done by creating a subheading called “works,” for example, and force-sorting it to the end, if it does not naturally fall there. Each work then becomes a sub-subheading.

Ignoring Articles

I am not sure if this really counts as force-sorting, as it is already the convention to ignore the articles A, An, and The that appear at the beginning of titles of works or places. But if, like me, you prefer to word the entry as A Tale of Two Cities, as opposed to inverting or leaving out the article, the entry will need force-sorting to place correctly. 

Biographies

The last situation I want to mention is in biographies, which I was reminded of by Kendra Millis in her talk on indexing biographies at the recent ISC/SCI conference. As Kendra pointed out, in some indexes the subheadings for the main subject are in either chronological order or page order, rather than alphabetical order. Since the entry for the main subject is often enormous and subentries can easily become buried, these alternative sorts can be attempts to make the main entry easier to navigate. These alternative sorts also require, of course, force-sorting. Personally, I would first try other approaches to bring order to the main entry in a biography, but I mention it here as a possibility and as a force-sorting example.

I hope this discussion and these examples have been helpful. Let me know if you have any other scenarios in which you break the rules. I’m all for both following the rules and breaking the rules, so long as it helps the index and the reader.

Article
September 12, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Index Subheadings Q&A

Subheadings are, I would argue, essential for a good index. Not everyone would agree, apparently, as evidenced by the indexes one finds with long strings of locators with perhaps the odd subheading tacked on at the end. But as a way to deliver additional information to the reader, and to break up and add meaning to those long strings of locators, subheadings are the primary tool available. Yet subheadings can also be poorly written or included, which can sabotage the whole purpose of using them in the first place. While I realize that different indexers vary on how they use subheadings, here are some of the common considerations I face about subheadings, and how I resolve them.

How many locators must an entry have before subheadings are needed?

My rule of thumb is about six locators before I add subheadings, but I also consider the context before making my final decision. For trade books I might allow up to seven or eight undifferentiated locators, under the assumption that trade books can often have lighter, less detailed indexes. I also consider how important the information behind the locators seem to be, as well as how important the entry is in the context of the index. It also depends on what type of information is being conveyed. A distinction between almond milk, soy milk, and goat milk, as subheadings under milk, for example, seems important to make even if there are only four locators.  Alternatively, there could be nine locators on the same topic with very little to distinguish them, which would make subheadings seem forced. Ideally, my upper limit for undifferentiated locators is ten. 

Going back to those nine similar locators—what if there are fifteen and breaking them down isn’t practical or possible?

I once faced this problem in a book of local history in which a few people, still alive, had been quoted extensively, with like fifteen or twenty locators each. On the one hand, I felt that it was important to index these people, as they were alive and members of the community. On the other hand, they were rarely the focus of the text, instead offering little comments here and there. For that reason, and also for space, subheadings did not seem appropriate, as it would have resulted in long lists of one subheading per locator. My solution was to use a fake subheading, appended to the main heading, along the lines of,

Smith, John, reminisces of 

The locators were still undifferentiated (we do not know what John is remembering), but I think this worked better because the reader was still provided with some additional information about what type of information this was. I think the worst scenario for a long string of undifferentiated locators is to provide the reader with no context, so if all of the locators are similar in some way, it is worth adding a little extra to the entry. 

The space constraint is really tight. Should I just delete all the subheadings?

No. Some subheadings will need to be deleted, but try to do this in a controlled, mindful manner. I like to call it performing triage on the index, which I have written about previously. Basically, my goal is to keep the most important entries as intact as possible, while making most of my cuts on the entries that are less important. Cutting this way will mean more entries with undifferentiated locators, but done right, a good number of subheadings should still be preserved and the reader should still be able to get a good sense of the book from the index.

Is there a magic formula for writing subheadings?

One of the problems with subheadings is that they take up a lot of real estate. So one temptation is to make subheadings as concise as possible. I value concision too, but I have come to value clarity more, even if it takes an extra word or two. Part of this is also making sure that the relationship between the heading and subheading is clear. If the reader cannot understand the entry, then the entry may as well be removed as it is not fulfilling its purpose.

I also try to write subheadings in plain language, alongside the author’s terminology. I don’t want to assume that the user of the index has already read the book or is familiar with the jargon, though this does vary from book to book, depending on the intended audience. For me, using plainer or simpler language is part of making the index accessible.

Do you mix subheadings with undifferentiated locators?

Ah, probably the most contentious question of them all. Personally, I do not like mixing subheadings with undifferentiated, or unruly, locators. Ask a handful of indexers what those orphaned locators signify and you will get a handful of different answers. If indexers can’t agree, I suspect readers will probably be confused too, so I’d rather have no subheadings than have a mix.

I do have two exceptions that I allow. The first is to start the entry with a broad range, such as for a whole chapter, which is then broken down in the subheadings. This tells the reader (I hope) that there is a significant chunk of text on the subject and if they want to start on the first page and read through, they can. The second scenario, which I may do if space is tight, is to leave locators for illustrations undifferentiated, though they would be indicated by the locator being in italics or boldface, for example, so they are still, in a way, differentiated. 

But what about introductory material in the text? Does that really need to be broken down into subheadings?

Introductory material can be tricky to index, as it is usually brief and covers a lot of ground. This could be a paragraph per chapter in the introduction of the book, along with a couple of pages at the beginning of each chapter, as well as possibly a couple of pages at the end of each chapter, to sum up what has been discussed. I have heard some indexers say they leave these undifferentiated, with the assumption that readers will recognize this as introductory material. I don’t want to make that assumption, so I instead gather these into a subheading labeled something like, “about,” “approach to,” “introduction,” introduction and conclusion,” or “overview.” The exact wording varies according to what seems most appropriate for that particular text. I then force sort this subheading to the top of the entry, so readers can start with the introductory material, if they want. 

What are some of the common questions or issues you face? Do you have different solutions to these problems? Feel free to reply and let me know.

Article
July 17, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Translating the Text for the Index

Words matter in the index.

This may be stating the obvious, but I think it is worth repeating. The terms and phrasing used need to be readily understood by the user of the index. 

The text, of course, is the first place to look for terminology that can be transposed into the index. But as indexers, we also need to be careful about what we use from the text and how. Not all books contain a wealth of terminology that is suitable. 

I often see two main scenarios when alternative terms should be used.

The first is when the author’s terminology should and can be used, and it is also mostly jargon. If we can assume that the audience of the book will also understand that jargon, then there is no problem. But sometimes the audience will include non-specialists as well, and for that audience I think it can be helpful to include other terms, probably as cross-references, for these other readers. I also try to write the subheading using plain language, so that the concept or reference is understandable without having first read the book.

The second scenario is to put in the jargon that the author either does not use or buries. I like to call this translating the text. It is when the author, for the sake of being creative or engaging the reader, uses descriptive language that is enjoyable to read and conveys the concept, but the actual term or phrase that captures the aboutness is either missing or not obvious. This can happen throughout the text, from the title to chapter titles to headings, as well as how sections and paragraphs are written. To give a simple example, I once indexed a book titled Igniting the Internet, which to me sounds like it could be about viral social media posts or celebrities online. Instead, as the subtitle tells us, it was about Youth and Activism in Postauthoritarian South Korea. There are times that indexing requires us to read further or read between the lines to understand what the text is about.

There is the concern of taking this translation too far and of introducing too much new terminology. We do not want an index that is divorced from the text. This is where cross-references play a role, to link and point towards preferred terms. We also need to make sure that any terminology we introduce will make sense to the audience, rather than introducing terms that make sense to us. For one book I googled sales terminology for a sales book that employed a highly descriptive writing style. It was not terminology I would ordinarily use, but the terminology fit the book.

So when indexing, pay attention to the language used. Match the book if possible, and do not be afraid to do some translating if need be. The reader will only be able to find information if they can first understand the index.

Article
July 10, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Editing the Index on the Go Redux

Last week I tried to puzzle my way through the concept of editing the index while the entries are being created, as opposed to saving most of the editing for the end of the indexing process. As I wrote, some indexers say that they save a lot of time by working like this, which I accept in principle while finding that it can be difficult to implement. 

Coincidentally (I promise I hadn’t recently checked the conference line-up), the first speaker at the Indexing Society of Canada’s conference in Ottawa last week was Anne Fifer, with a presentation titled “Edit Your Index Without Pain.” I did find Anne’s talk helpful for clearing up some of my questions and misconceptions, so I am going to revisit the topic with some of Anne’s insights. I thought you might find it helpful too.

First, to set expectations, editing is still required at the end of the indexing process. It is not possible to eliminate editing entirely, but the amount can be reduced. Anne said that often she just needs a day for the final edit. 

Anne’s approach seems to be two-fold. The first part is to use the full capabilities of her indexing software to streamline indexing. Specifically, extensively using labels to highlight entries that need different sorts of editing or extra attention, so that these are easy to find later on. Anne also discussed custom dictionaries for accurate spell check, which I can see to be helpful if one is working on a lot of medical indexes like Anne does, but I don’t really see the benefit for books that lack such specialized terminology. I don’t see myself making custom dictionaries for the books I typically index.

The second part to Anne’s approach is to lay the necessary groundwork for the index at the start. Part of this is making sure that all necessary resources are in easy reach, which is a good reminder that the details of our work environment can make a difference. The largest component is to establish the index structure from the start, which Fred Leise discussed in more detail in his talk (Fred also has an article in The Indexer 34(4)and has presented a webinar with ASI on his approach to structure, if you want to learn more). The benefit of this is that once established, the structure does not need much editing later on, if at all. It also provides the framework to slot entries within as one works through the text. Thinking through the structure upfront was my biggest takeaway from the conference, and something I will be adding to my indexing practice going forward.

Anne also discussed editing in small increments. Part of this is doing a small edit at the end of each day for a specific list of common issues that she looks for. Part of this is also isolating and editing in batches the previously labeled entries. This means that a lot of spelling, formatting, or other common issues are already dealt with by the time Anne reaches the final edit. As I wrote last week, I find it difficult to focus on editing at the end of the day, but I like the idea of being self-aware of issues I commonly need to fix and of proactively fixing them in batches. This could also be done at the start of the day, for example, if I don’t want to do it at the end.

All told, I think Anne has some practical tips to make editing easier. I hoped you learned something too, and are able to become more efficient in your indexing.

Article
July 3, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Editing the Index on the Go

With our income as indexers often proportional to the amount of work we can complete, efficiency is key. I want to consider today a practice that I know some indexers use, which is editing as the index entries are created. In theory—and I have heard some indexers say they manage this in practice—by the time you reach the end of the book, very little editing remains to be done. 

I have to admit that while I try to do this, I still tend to split indexing into two distinct phases. There are aspects of the editing-in-the-go approach that I struggle with. So this is more of a self-reflection than a how-to. Maybe you will get some ideas for what works for you. 

There are definitely a couple of advantages to editing as you go, which I try to keep in mind as encouragement. The main one for me is that the content is dealt with while it remains fresh in my mind, which means less going back and double-checking later in the indexing process. This should save time during the final edit, as most of the issues in the index will have already been dealt with. 

Still, I find there can be some barriers to putting this approach into practice. I often find that creating the entries and editing the index requires me to think in different ways, and it can be hard to switch back and forth between entry mode and editing mode. After several hours of entering entries, having to go back and edit can also seem too taxing for my tired mind. And sometimes, especially for more complicated texts, I find I don’t really understand the text until I’ve had a second look at a later date. In this instance, editing is very much part of my process for understanding the text. I also suspect that editing on the go requires a clear sense of what the final index should look like and what constitutes a good final draft.

When I find editing-as-you-go most helpful is for books that are organized into discrete chapters or sections. If I know that armadillos are primarily discussed on pages 34-63, then a quick edit of that one entry, before moving on to the next section, does save time later on. Unfortunately, not all books are this well organized, and a quick edit is still needed at the end to make sure the entry still holds together. Also, something I should do more of, and to avoid the excuse of tiredness, is to do a quick edit after every chapter, to clean up any obvious errors or redundancies. 

Another form of editing which can be done early in the indexing process is to establish consistent wording, particularly for elements like glosses. I may not always know what I want to use right away, but once I do, it can be worth taking a moment to go back and fix, and then be consistent going forward. This can also be done to consolidate subheadings, if I decide partway through to change the wording or how I am gathering locators.  

Otherwise, I have to admit that if I am not certain about a particular entry, I tend to just keep going. I will put in my best guess or use some sort of placeholder wording, and I may write a separate note for myself about the issue, and then I will come back later during the editing phase. There are elements of indexing on the go that I use and can better incorporate, but I do like the editing phase. I find that I view the index differently while editing, which is valuable in its own right. 

How do you index? Do you edit as you create the index entries? Why do you do it, and what works best? Let me know, if you have a moment. I am curious to know what works for you.

Article
June 27, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Why Correctly Identifying the Metatopic Matters

I have been reluctant to write about metatopics. It is already extensively discussed by Do Mi Stauber, Janet Perlman, and Margie Towery in their books, as well as, I assume, elsewhere. Appropriately handling the metatopic is also one of the trickier aspects of indexing to master. I am not sure what I can add to the discussion that is new. I also suspect that reading about the metatopic only goes so far. The best learning comes from taking theory and applying it to real books, though perhaps that is simply how I learn best.

Still, I was recently talking with a new indexer who was struggling with the metatopic, and a misconception came to light that might be worth highlighting. Specifically, this new indexer was feeling overwhelmed by the multiple metatopics which she had identified in the book. The misconception was that the metatopics identified were actually main topics, or what Margie Towery might call supermain headings. These are clearly important topics that need to be in the index, but they do not encompass the whole book, which is what differentiates main topics from metatopics.

I like what Janet Perlman says about the metatopic in her book, Indexing Tactics & Tidbits (Information Today, Inc., 2016):

“…The metatopic is intertwined with aboutness. When the indexer can make a cogent statement of what a book is about, whether it be a word, a phrase, or a sentence, he has identified the metatopic of the book.”

There is usually only one metatopic in a book, sometimes two if a book has dual subjects. It may be a complicated metatopic, requiring a sentence or three to explain, but it should still be a single topic or concept that encompasses the whole book.

Correctly identifying the metatopic is important because this impacts how the metatopic is handled in the index and how the whole index is structured. This new indexer was having trouble because she was trying to follow the advice to disperse information away from the metatopic entry. This is generally good advice, and the reasoning is, since everything in the book, theoretically, falls under the metatopic, all main topics should stand on their own as main entries. In this approach, the metatopic should be a signpost to the main entries via cross-references, and should only gather general information that are not able to stand alone. It is usually not a large entry. This approach works fine when there is a single metatopic, but not if you are trying to disperse information for multiple topics. As this indexer learned, if you are trying to disperse all of the information from all of the main topics, the index quickly loses all sense of structure and some information simply does not stand alone very well. 

The flip side to dispersal is gathering, and while gathering the whole book under the metatopic entry is not practical, gathering under individual main topics is. This is why we need to distinguish between the metatopic and supermain headings, because these different types of information and entries are handled differently. As I have discussed previously, entries should contain or direct readers to everything they need to know about that topic. Overly large entries can be split up into smaller chunks that are still meaningful, but we should see dispersal and gathering as complementary techniques for structuring the index. They each have their role, and the starting point is correctly identifying the different components of the book and how those components translate into the index.

The metatopic plays key role in the index, but only if it is first correctly identified.

Article
June 5, 2019
1 comment
by Stephen

Who to Serve: the Client or the Reader?

Who is the index for?

This may seem like a trick question. You are probably thinking, “The reader, obviously.” So let me rephrase the question.

As the indexer, who are you trying to please?

I hope you are still trying to please the reader, but when writing the index, the first person or people to see and approve the index are often not the book’s readers. 

What I am getting at is the distinction between the client and the reader, and how the needs and wants of each may not be fully aligned. 

As freelancers, we primarily work with the client, which can be either the author, editor, or both. If you are the author writing your own index, this may not be an issue if you are self-publishing, but if you are working with a publisher, you may be working with an editor or proofreader on the index. 

Ideally, our vision for the index aligns with the client and the reader. But it can happen that the client wants something different. What happens when that point of difference violates indexing best practices? What do we do when we think that the reader will no longer be well served? Where does our ethical obligation lie?

There is a line of thought in business that the client is always right. So long as we get paid for our work, and the client is happy enough to come back for our services again, who really cares what the end product look likes? The client is paramount.

What this line of reasoning misses, though, is that the index, in this case, is not actually for the client. Sure, the client is paying us, but the people who will actually use the index are the readers. 

Now, I am not suggesting open conflict with our clients. Money is persuasive, and I like being paid as much as anyone else. At the same time, keeping the ultimate audience in mind, I think we should be willing to push back a bit when clients request changes that are detrimental. Perhaps the client simply does not understand and is willing to learn. Perhaps the client does have a point, and we can offer an alternative solution that is a better fix for the problem. Perhaps there is some other way to compromise. 

Gently pushing back can also be a reminder, to ourselves as much as to the client, that we are professionals. Being a professional does not always mean that we are right, but it does often mean we have a broader understanding of the situation. We should not be afraid to make our voice known, even if ultimately we accede to the client’s point of view. This also involves knowing what is worth speaking up for, and when to stay silent.  

Ultimately, I want both the client and the reader to be happy with the index. This requires taking both seriously, and not being afraid to explain my position when needed.

Article
June 3, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Business Changes Ahead

Last week in my recap of the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation conference I alluded to business change, which is a difficult subject to write about. Change is inherently disruptive, as it usually involves some kind of ending as well as a new beginning. Change also affects the web of relationships with colleagues and clients that I exist in. It is also often personal, especially in a single-person freelancing business, as I am the one making the change.

At the same time, I think that change is natural and even necessary in a business. I change as a person, in my interests, goals, experience, and circumstances. The publishing industry around me is also always changing. I believe that a successful business requires a certain amount of mindfulness and self-reflection in order to know when to change and when to hold the course. It may be that not changing is the right decision—I certainly do not believe in change for the sake of change—but that decision to not change should still be a conscious choice. 

I mention all this because I am feeling myself to be at a point of change. Really, to be honest, I feel like this whole year so far, and part of last year, has been a gradual reorientation in what I want to do for work.

 Being a freelance indexer, for me, has never really been about indexing. The original purpose was to create a more flexible schedule and an income to support my writing. Ironically, in doing the hard work to establish a freelance business, and then keeping up with the increasing requests for my services, I really have not done much writing. I have not put the time into writing, like I have for indexing, to become a published author, which is still a goal of mine. I have been feeling this discrepancy more acutely in the last couple of years, which is leading me to wonder: Can I change my business to incorporate more writing? Should I change and trade (some) steady income for a risky venture? What if I completely fail at being an author?

These are not easy questions to answer. The ideal scenario, at least as I envision it now, is to write part-time and index part-time. But cutting my indexing work in half overnight is not practical or sustainable. 

This year I have made a renewed effort to blog every week, and have also started to write a weekly reflection on indexing. Even committing to this has felt at times like a struggle, in relation to my indexing work, but I think it is also proving helpful for establishing a regular writing habit, and to orienting my focus more towards writing.

For fiction, I am trying to commit to one half-day a week, which is really a struggle, akin to drawing my own blood sometimes, in the face of looming indexing deadlines. But I do enjoy those mornings when I show up to write, and I feel like progress is being made, even if just in very small increments. My goal is to eventually work on fiction two mornings a week, and perhaps work up from there. 

I am writing this because I want to let you know of this change that I am trying to make. You will probably see more posts about writing, mixed in with the posts about indexing and freelancing. Eventually–hopefully–even some stories and news about publications.

I will still index, of course, though instead of using the lessons learned at the ISC/SCI conference to expand my indexing business as far as it can go, I am hoping to create more time to write—to index the same amount, or maybe a little less, in less time, essentially. I am excited to see what results from these changes, and I am also a bit scared. It will also mean a lot of work, starting with trusting myself that this is the right decision to make at this time. Thank you for following along. I do appreciate it.

Article
May 29, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

On Double-Barrelled Entries

If the index structure can be likened to a skeleton, and the information that the index seeks to convey the lifeblood, then perhaps all the small details that shape and bind an index together can be considered the muscle and sinew. It is this attention to detail that can elevate an index. One specific type of detail, which I have been considering and using in some of my own recent indexes, are double-barrelled terms. 

By double-barrelled terms, I mean terms that bring together similar and related concepts into a single heading or subheading. The different components are usually connected by an and or a forward slash.

At the main heading level, I think this works best for concepts that are clearly related in some way. These could also be variations of a word, and if the terms would sort side-by-side anyway. Think architects and architecture, or canoes and canoeing. These terms are not quite synonymous, so if going the double-barrelled route, make sure that there is overlap in how these terms are discussed in the text. I find it also helps if each term would be a relatively small entry on its own. Otherwise, if the terms are used in distinct ways or would form substantial entries by themselves, then two separate entries are probably the better option.

Double-barrelled terms can also work as subheadings. The first situation would be the same as discussed above for main headings. The second situation (which does not work as well for main headings) is to link together related events. For example, in a family history I recently indexed I had the following subheadings: cancer and death; wedding and married life.

I think this works because it shows a clear chronological progression. This also works when the two discussions happen on the same page or across a small span of pages. Separate subheadings would have simply duplicated the information. As with main headings, it also helps if there are only a few locators to gather together. If there are a lot of locators—say an entire chapter or section each for the wedding and then married life, then separate subheadings make more sense.

If you need to shorten the index, double-barrelled terms can also be another tool you can use for merging entries and cutting down on duplication. It will probably not make a big difference, but can still be useful if just a few lines need to be cut or if used with other methods for shortening. 

Otherwise, I think elegance is the main reason for using this technique. Double-barrelled headings and subheadings can bring terms together in a way that is less didactic, and can provide a more nuanced understanding of the book than through standalone entries. Double-barrelled terms are not always applicable, but are useful to keep in mind for the right book.

What do you think of double-barrelled entries? Do you use them in your own work?

Article
May 28, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

ISC/SCI Ottawa 2019 Indexing Conference Recap

I am home from the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation’s conference in Ottawa, back to working on an index that is due ASAP while also trying to recover from a few packed days at the conference and a late flight home Sunday night. I do enjoy the conferences—one of the best ways to gain a sense of community, in my opinion—and the conferences are exhausting, for this rather shy person. More so this year, perhaps, due to a busy couple of weeks in the lead up. For the first time ever, I skipped out on a session for some alone time. 

Still, I thought I’d jot down a few highlights while the conference is still fresh in my mind.

  • One of my key takeaways was to better learn how to vet books (to use Enid Zafran’s term) prior to indexing, and to get a much better handle on the index structure at the beginning of the indexing process, as per Fred Leise’s excellent presentation. This feels like a natural next step in improving how I index.
  • I also have much food for thought on how to run my business from Pierre Joyal’s presentation on incorporation, as well as from conversations with another more experienced indexer. I feel like I have to be very careful in how I grow my business, as I don’t want to focus on growth to the exclusion of writing. If anything, I want to index less so that I can write more. At the same time, I expect that I will index for many years to come, so I do need to pay attention to the business side of things. I think what I need is a business that grows in such a way to support the work and life that I want, rather than growth at any cost. 
  • I am very thankful to have attended Enid Zafran’s all-day workshop on indexing names, especially as Enid announced that she is slowing down and that this might be her last workshop. She is a masterful teacher and indexer, and I definitely learned a few things about names that I did not know before. 
  • Kate Mertes is also an excellent presenter, and her talk on index locorums was illuminating. That said, outside of Biblical citations, I don’t feel at all qualified to take on an index locorum. Kate definitely has a unique set of skills.
  • This conference felt like the beginnings of a generational turnover. There are a number of indexers in both the Canadian and American societies who have decades of experience, and who have done so much to teach and mentor. It seems like more of them are starting to either slow down or retire. I am glad that they are still with us, but this conference did seem to be a reminder that a new generation will need to step up in the next few years. 
  • I am no longer a coordinator for the Mary Newberry Mentorship Program. That responsibility is now passed on to Linda Christian and Alexandrea Jory. I think they will do an excellent job, and after two years of putting the program together, I am ready to pass it on. Still, letting go is bittersweet. 
  • For a door prize I picked up a hard copy of the manual for the new Cindex 4.0. I guess this means I better upgrade. 
  • The biggest surprise of the conference was being given the Tamarack Award, which is for volunteer service “above and beyond the call of duty.” In my case, so I was told, largely for putting together the mentorship program. I was also told that my face turned several shades of red while receiving the award. Many thanks to all present for your kind words and acknowledgement. If you are interested in knowing what the award looks like, here it is perched on one of the bookshelves in my living room.