It is true that common indexing wisdom is to avoid repeating locators within an array. Repetition, with locators duplicated across subheadings, can bloat an index. An array may be difficult to read, or confusing to readers, if there are too many similar subheadings side-by-side. If there is a strict length limit, there may also not be enough space for duplication.

And yet, as with many conventions in indexing, “it depends.” I recently wrote an index in which I did consider repeating locators within an array. I think it is worth teasing out why this may sometimes be appropriate.

Framing Discussions

To start, it is important to recognize that discussions can be framed multiple ways. This affects how subheadings are phrased.

One option is to state the literal concept, object, organization, or person that is being discussed. For the book I recently indexed, which was about Anglican Church leaders and fertility-manipulation schemes during the interwar period, this could be something like,

birth control: Anglican leaders on

This tells the reader who is commenting (Anglican leaders) and what they are commenting on (birth control), but it does not tell us anything about the substance of the discussion.

Another approach is thematic, to focus on that substance. For example,

birth control: class and; empire and

These two approaches can also be combined, though such subheadings can become unwieldy and each element of the subheading may not appear on every page. For example,

birth control: and Anglican leaders’ concerns about class and empire 

My point here is not to advocate for one framing over another. I use different approaches, often within the same index. It depends on what I think it most relevant for the reader and the array. To cut down on length and to keep arrays succinct, it often helps to pick a single frame. As is oft said, the goal is to point readers to the information, not to rewrite the text.

Other times, however, it may make sense to include multiple frames—multiple subheadings—because the different frames carry equal weight and because the discussions—and locators—while overlapping, are also distinct. This can help tease out the different elements, especially when discussions are complicated and intertwined. So, something like,

birth control: Anglican leaders on; class and; empire and

Alternate Entry Points

An alternative to having parallel subheadings and duplicate locators within an array is to create entry points elsewhere. Perhaps there is not enough space in the birth control array to include subheadings for class and empire, but those can both be (and should be) main entries in their own right. When considering the different elements of a discussion, and the different ways a discussion can be framed, think about what other headings and subheadings can be created elsewhere. An index is the perfect place to deconstruct and scatter discussions.

Multiple Discussions Per Page

It may also happen that a single page contains multiple distinct discussions. This is especially true the more words there are per page, depending on how the book has been typeset. If this is the case, then index to the discussions. Don’t worry if locators are duplicated. 

The trick here is distinguishing what is truly a distinct discussion or fact, rather than a granular subset of the same discussion. Does the discussion still hold together when you telescope out?

Focus on the Story

Lastly, consider the story that the array needs to tell. What is it, about this subject, that is important for the reader to know? This is not about rewriting the book in the index, but rather about effectively pointing readers in the right direction. Having a focus is also relevant for space, both because space for the index may be limited and in the sense that a succinct array is easier to scan. 

This also comes back to framing. What is the most effective frame for readers to recognize what they are seeking? As mentioned, often a single frame is sufficient, focusing on whatever is most relevant. In other instances, it may be better to include multiple frames if they hold equal weight. Either way, test the subheading(s) against the larger story or point that the book is making about that topic. 

Repeating locators within an array, across two or more subheadings, is usually a question of how that information is being framed. It is often best to avoid duplication, to avoid similar, parallel subheadings or an array that is too long. In other instances, in which discussions are complicated with intertwined subjects and themes, parallel subheadings may be justified. It is a matter of seeing the whole story that needs to be conveyed, and then deciding the best way to point readers towards that story. As with so much when indexing, it is less a question of right or wrong, and more a matter of weighing the relative merits and applicability of different approaches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few competing interests to keep in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s question is about granularity:

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

That is an excellent question. Thank you for asking.

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

What is Granularity?

To begin with, what is granularity, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Telling Stories

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

Granularity can factor in a couple of different ways.

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

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

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

Spreading Out Granularity

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

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

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

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

Audience and Type of Book

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

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

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

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

Space Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone replied to that reflection and brought up the important and related issue of synonymous and similar terms. Thank you for your email! Synonyms seem like a natural follow-up, so I am going to write about that today. 

Synonyms vs. Similar Terms

When I think about synonyms, I mostly think about concepts and things. These are different from names. Name variants either belong to the same person or organization or they don’t. With concepts and things, there can be much more nuance.

I like the phrase “synonymous and similar terms” because it reflects that nuance. Some terms are interchangeable. Other terms are similar yet distinct. The context of the discussion can also be important; terms may be synonymous in one book and distinct in another. So when dealing with concepts and things, it is not simply a matter of identifying synonyms but also of determining how they are used.

Terms can vary for a number of reasons. Synonyms exist in the English language and an author may use more than one term in their book. Authors in an edited collection may also choose different terms.

Preferred terms can change as society becomes more attentive to the impact and nuance of what terms mean and how terms impact people. For example, the recent move from “slaves” to “enslaved people.” In Canada, in regards to Indigenous Peoples, terminology has shifted over the past several decades from “Indian,” to “Aboriginal,” to “Indigenous.” Indigenous Peoples are also differentiated, in Canada, between the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. 

Terms can also vary across countries and cultures. In regards to Indigenous Peoples, the term Native Americans is not typically used in Canada, while common in the US.

Terms can also reflect important distinctions. In an edited collection I recently indexed, the terms and phrases “Two-Spirit,” “Indigiqueer,” and “Two-Spirit, trans, and queer Indigenous” where all used in reference to queer Indigenous people. Though the authors typically used these terms together to discuss queer Indigenous people more broadly, the authors also wanted to acknowledge that queer Indigenous people can identify in different ways. 

Three Strategies

There are three main strategies for handling synonymous and similar terms. These can be used alone or combined.

1. Choose a preferred term to gather together discussions and create cross-references from the other terms. This works best if the book predominantly uses a single term, or if conventions and understandings have shifted to prefer one term over another. This strategy is also best when terms are truly synonymous. All discussions are gathered in a single array. Use cross-references to redirect readers from the other terms. 
2. Create separate arrays for each term, with cross-references between them. This works best if terms are similar, not quite synonymous. Keeping the arrays separate emphasizes the distinctions, while the cross-references alert readers that more can be found elsewhere. 
3. Combine terms into a single heading. This works best if terms are used interchangeably in the text. For example, if terms are synonymous and there is no clear preference. Or, if terms are distinct but mostly discussed together. In the queer Indigenous example above, the volume editors and I settled on the main heading “Two-spirit and Indigiqueer” to acknowledge that these are distinct identities that are nonetheless discussed together. When combining terms, headings can either be double-posted or, if subheadings are needed, a cross-reference included from the second term. 

Include All Alternative Terms?

How proactive should indexers be finding and including alternative terms? Is it acceptable to stick to terms in the text or should the indexer look beyond?

This is a judgement call that each indexer will need to make. If synonymous and similar terms are in the text, then yes, those should definitely be in the index. Preferred terms in the index should ideally reflect the text.

If terms are not in the text, it is not necessarily the indexer’s responsibility to find and include. Part of this is due to the limits of the indexer’s knowledge. I am not well-versed on terminology in Australia or the UK, for example, so if a British or Australian term is not in the book, I probably won’t think of it. I may also miss synonyms if the subject matter is outside of my range of expertise.

The inclusion of synonyms and similar terms should also be reasonable for the intended audience. If the book is being published in Canada for a Canadian audience, cross-references from American or British terms are probably unnecessary. I usually include the term “Native Americans” in indexes for American publishers and audiences but not for a Canadian audience.

If several synonyms exist, I think it is good enough to include what most readers are likely to search for, rather than trying to exhaustively find and include every possible term. In Canada, “Indigenous” is now well established, so I no longer feel the need to include a cross-reference from “Aboriginal,” unless the book uses the term. Similarly, when considering the terms “gay,” “LGBT,” “queer” and “2S+LGBTTQ*,” among others, does the audience really need a cross-reference from each? Maybe, maybe not. 

What I am trying to find is a balanced approach. While trying to be thorough, I am also mindful of my own limitations. I am also aware of diminishing returns, for myself if trying to think of and include every last synonym, and for readers, if the chances of readers searching for a particular term are miniscule. I am trying to provide the most reasonable access for the most readers; there may be a few outliers that I can’t control. 

Synonymous and similar terms can be difficult to spot and parse. Pay attention to how terms are used in the text, pick a strategy, and make sure that similar terms are somehow connected so that distinctions and similarities are clear to readers. 

Another challenge, which can be common in multi-author collections, is inconsistency in how names and terms are written. With forty-five different chapters and almost as many authors (a couple of authors wrote more than one chapter), there was a fair amount of variation. So today I want to discuss strategies for handling variant names and terms.

Perhaps the first point to keep in mind is that variations are not errors. An error is objectively wrong, usually due to a misspelling. A variation, on the other hand, is still valid and correct. 

Variations can happen for a number of reasons. There may be a difference between a person or organization’s formal or full name and the name they are commonly known by. A person or organization may also change their name throughout their life or history. Names in another language may be translated or transliterated in different ways. Besides people and organizations, in this Oxford handbook I also noticed variations in how titles of certain documents were formatted, whether in italics, quotation marks, or roman script.

From an editing standpoint, I get the sense that some volume editors can be reluctant to impose consistency, not wanting to step on authors’ toes. I imagine consistency can also be difficult to enforce across so many chapters, even if the volume editor or copyeditor is trying to. So while I can point of inconsistencies and possible errors, I also accept that variations are likely to stay. It is not my job to enforce consistency in the text.

For the index, though, I do need to somehow impose consistency. Multiple, parallel arrays for the same person, organization, or document is not good practice. Multiple arrays will likely take up more space, and even with cross-references between all relevant terms, I think there is a greater risk of a reader missing relevant information because they are not seeing the other array(s).

So how best to bring together and make consistent terms which are inconsistent in the text?

Step 1: Identify Possible Variants

The first step is simply to identify possible variants. If I see two similar names side-by-side in the index, whether of people or organizations, that should be a red flag that I need to have a closer look. Or if a name change is mentioned in the text. Or if I notice that a title is otherwise identical except for how it is formatted. Whatever the signal is, I need to be alert and pay attention. 

Step 2: Confirm Variant Names

The second step is to confirm that these are indeed variations and not errors or legitimately separate entities.

There are different ways to confirm. I can look at the context for how these names are discussed. If they seem to be from the same time period and discussed in relation to the same topics, then they are probably the same person or organization. On the other hand, if one person is mentioned as being from the seventeenth century and the other from the twentieth century, or one person is a mechanic and the other is a senator, then they are probably different people. 

 I can also run a quick search online. This can be especially helpful for organizations which have changed their name, if I can find a brief historical overview. I don’t want to spend too much time researching, but I can often find an answer within a couple of minutes. 

I can also query the author or volume editor, especially if I’m still not sure after looking at the context or online. It can still be worth querying even if I am fairly confident in the answer. The author may decide to make the text consistent, and it can happen that I am wrong. 

Step 3: Decide How to Handle Variations in the Index

This is the challenging part. Once variations are confirmed, I need to decide how best to handle them in the index.

Let’s look at a couple of fictitious examples. First, a person:

Hart, Bob

Hart, R. J.

Hart, Robert

Hart, Robert J.

Hart, Robert James

After checking the context in which these names are discussed and confirming with the author, I’ve ascertained that these five names all refer to the same person. But I don’t want to have five separate arrays, each taking up a line and giving the impression that these are five separate people. Instead, I usually use the fullest version of the name, which in this case is “Hart, Robert James.” I trust the reader to realize that “Robert J.” and the other variants are reasonable variations and one and the same.

If I’m not confident that the reader will make the connection, or if the person is well known by a different variant—perhaps they published extensively under one variant while being known in person by another—I may include a variant in a gloss. For example, “Hart, Robert James (R. J.).” Now readers have two variants to reference. Again, I trust readers to make the connections to the others. I usually don’t add more than one variant to the gloss because I don’t want the heading to take up too much space or be too difficult to read. I’m trying to walk a fine line between usability and trusting the reader.

I take a similar approach with organizations. Consider the following fictitious non-profit which operated under and was known by a variety of names throughout its history:

Edmonton Games and Toy Association

Edmonton Games and Toys

North Edmonton Toys and Games

North Edmonton Toys

Toys and Games For All

Similar to personal names, I am inclined to combine into a single array. There are a few different ways to approach this.

I can look to see which name(s) are used most often in the text. I can also see which is the current or latest name, as well as which was the original name and how the organization is commonly known. The answers will likely be the names I prioritize in the index.

If just a handful of locators, no subheadings needed, I can double-post under two or more variants. For example,

Edmonton Games and Toy Association (now Toys and Games For All)

Toys and Games For All (formerly Edmonton Games and Toy Association)

I like to put the alternate name in a gloss so readers can see both and realize that they may find either name in the text.

If a name is barely mentioned in the text and if it appears on the same page as a more commonly used name—say North Edmonton Toys and Games represents a brief period in the organization’s history—I may omit it entirely from the index, assuming that readers are less likely to search for it. Or, I may include it as a cross-reference but I won’t add it to the gloss. 

If three or more names are used about equally, then I will add them all to the gloss. Even though that makes for a longer heading, I think it is worth doing for clarity. For example,

Toys and Games For All (formerly Edmonton Games and Toy Association, North Edmonton Toys and Games)

If I decide not to double-post—usually because subheadings are warranted—then I will include cross-references from the other names.

Are there ever circumstances in which I would keep variant names as separate arrays? Yes. Say the name change goes beyond a rebrand, such as an organization being broken up and new entities spun off. In that instance, while the organizations are clearly related and should have cross-references between them, I think the case can be made that the new entity is distinct and should stand alone. Otherwise, if the name change is essentially a rebrand, I’m inclined to gather together so that readers need only look in a single place.

Formatting differences are easier to deal with. I think the simplest option is to pick a format and be consistent throughout the index. As long as the wording is identical or at least recognizable, readers should figure it out, regardless of the formatting.

Dealing with variant names and terms can be tricky because the terminology used in the text needs to be respected whereas the index has different needs. The connections between variant terms need to be made clear so that readers find all relevant discussions, while doing so in a way that is easy to navigate, doesn’t overwhelm the reader, nor takes up too much space, if space is a concern. To do all this, readers need to be trusted, to a certain extent, to follow along. Weighing these various needs can be a balancing act, deciding which terms to prioritize, how many variants to include, how much to trust readers, and deciding between using cross-references and double-posts.

In the end, the goal, as always, is to get readers to the right place. As to how, well, you have options.

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.

Main headings, which kick off an entry or array, usually describe a single person or thing. It could be a name, or a government agency, or a physical object, or a concept. It is concrete and identifiable. Which is what we want in a main heading. Readers need to be able to clearly identify what it is they are searching for.

But sometimes the thing that we are trying to describe is complicated, and it is okay for the main heading to expand and help carry the weight of the text.

I ended up taking this approach for the index for The Other Great Game: The Opening of Korea and the Modern East Asia, by Sheila Miyoshi Jager (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2023). This is a delightful history, squarely within one of my favorite areas to index—East Asian studies—while also quite challenging in its scope and length, at about 570 indexable pages.

This book is about the colonial jockeying for power and control over Korea, with Korea ultimately becoming a protectorate of Japan. One of the challenging aspects was all of the intertwined relationships. Korea is a key player, of course. Japan is also involved, and wanting to be taken seriously as a great power. Russia also has its interests and influence. China is a waning influence, though still trying to exert itself. Though less involved, the other Western powers—US, Britain, Germany, France—all played a role as well.  Much of the book covers the diplomatic back-and-forth as all these powers try to figure out what to do with Korea (instead of respecting Korea’s independence). From an indexing standpoint, what is the best way to index all of these relationships?

Most of these relationships, say between Korea and Japan, or Japan and Russia, are too large to be contained within a subheading or two. These are relationships that span decades, and include wars, lengthy negotiations, and shifts in the balance of power. With so much material to cover, double-posting these relationships under each respective country would have led to enormous, unwieldy arrays.

The solution I landed on was to make the relationship itself the main heading. So, “Korean-Chinese relations,” “Korean-Japanese relations,” “Japanese-Russian relations,” etc… I still had arrays for each country, for subheadings specific to that country, but the bulk of the entries fell under these various arrays for these relationships. This meant that under Korea or Japan, for example, there are several arrays, which break down the discussions into manageable, yet still clearly defined, portions.

This also raised the question of which country to prioritize in the main heading. Should it be “Japanese-Russian relations” or “Russian-Japanese relations”? Because Korea and Japan were the two biggest actors, I decided to let them take the lead, so to speak,, with the Western countries generally being listed second.

These main headings also required a lot of cross-references from the other countries. As I mentioned, double-posting wasn’t a viable option due to the sheer number of entries. Better to pick a single array to place entries under, and then use cross-references to point readers in the right direction. For example, “Russian-Korean relations. See Korean-Russian relations.”

If you are interested in seeing all this in action, you can view the index here, on Amazon, using the Look Inside feature.

The number one goal for main headings is that they be clear. A confused reader is less likely to find what they are looking for. But while keeping clarity in mind, you can also play with main headings to better match the discussions in the book. Some subjects and relationships are more complicated, and a longer, multi-part main heading may be the clearest and best option.