Article
March 4, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

Cognitive Load and Indexing Oxford UP Titles

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

The OUP System

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts on Cognitive Load

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for Handling Paragraph IDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article
January 21, 2025
0 comment
by Stephen

The Building Blocks of an Index

An index is a document that is scanned to find information. It usually spans several pages. But if you had to break an index down into its smallest part, what would that be?

An index is not like most books or documents in that it does not contain a narrative. It cannot be reduced to plot points or the components of an argument. An index doesn’t even contain proper sentences. Instead, an index is a compilation of references. Broken down, the smallest unit within an index is an entry. 

An entry has two components. Basically, “what this thing is + where to find it.” Using indexing terminology, this is “main heading + locator.” Or, to add another level of specificity, “main heading + subheading + locator.” From the entry, the reader can identify what they are looking at and where to find it in the text. For example,

Foxconn, 45

semiconductors: geopolitics of, 67

The second building block is an array. I like to think of an array as containing everything that an index—and by extension the book or document—has to say about a particular subject. If you want to learn about Foxconn, you search for the Foxconn array. Want to learn about semiconductors, you search for the semiconductors array.

If there is only one mention, then a single entry can serve as a single array. But more often, there are multiple discusses throughout the book, which lead to the creation of multiple entries. Combined together, the entries create an array.

Foxconn, 45, 49, 51-52

semiconductors: fabrication techniques, 54-57; geopolitics of, 67; history of, 23-25; properties of, 34, 44

Why are entries and arrays so important? No one writes an index composed of a single entry.

But every index begins with an entry, and as the index is written, the entries and arrays accumulate. It is through knitting the entries and arrays together than an index emerges.

Step one to writing an index is to write clear, concise, and specific entries, so that “what this thing is” is clear to the reader. Step two is to combine entries into arrays which are clearly organized and easy to scan. Step three is to sort and organize the arrays—creating the structure of the index—so that the index as a whole is easy to navigate. 

Each of these elements—the entry and the array—fit together, like interlocking pieces, to create a coherent whole.

A Note about Terminology 

I’ve noticed that not every indexer, including books about indexing, distinguishes between entries and arrays. I’m guilty myself of using the terms interchangeably, though I try to be clear when I’m writing.

But while terminology varies, I do think that the distinction is important. Because an index is composed of hundreds or thousands of pieces of information, it helps to know what these pieces are and how they interact with each other. An index is also easier to edit and organize if these building blocks are clearly written and well thought out.

As you index, how are these building blocks fitting together? How can you be more mindful of each piece of information and how it interacts with the entries and arrays around it? Does it make a difference to think about indexing as building up from the smallest unit to the larger whole?

Article
October 8, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

My Index Editing Process

Last time I wrote about reading like an indexer and what it is I do and look for when reading a text and writing the rough draft of an index. Today I’d like to reflect on my editing process.

A few months ago I started tracking my time when I index. I had previously done so, but not effectively and I eventually gave up. This time, I’ve created a new system and a new spreadsheet that is much easier to use, and I am a lot happier with the results.

One of my insights so far is that I spend about an equal amount of time drafting and editing. I have to admit that this surprised me. I knew that editing took up a fair amount of time, but I didn’t realize that the time spent is often about 50/50. For some indexes, I actually spend a little more time editing, making the time split closer to 45/55 or even 40/60.

Reflecting further on my process, I tend to spread drafting the index over 3-6 days, depending on the length of the book. Whereas I tend to edit within 2-3 days. When drafting, I am learning what the book is about. When editing, I am fully immersed in the index and I treat it more like a sprint. It probably also helps that by the time I get to editing, the deadline is looming.

I’m realizing that I also tend to draft quickly. I do try to write a fairly clean draft, taking into account context, clarity, and relevance, as I previously discussed. I believe in trying to set myself up for an easier edit. But I also know that this is not my final draft and that some things won’t become clear until I’ve read the whole book, and so I also try to keep moving.

Editing an index, for me, is both seeing the index as a whole and going through the index line by line. I like to give myself space between drafting and editing, which usually means sleeping on the draft and beginning to edit the next day. This helps to give me some distance so I can more clearly see the whole index with fresh eyes.

I usually begin by skimming the index, making note of the larger arrays for the metatopic and supermain discussions. This reminds me of the structure I am aiming for, and is a chance to consider if I want to make any major changes. I then start at the top of the index and work my way down, line by line. I know some indexers edit using multiple passes, each pass looking at a different element. I think I would go utterly cross-eyed and unable to make sense of the index if I tried multiple passes. Instead, my goal is to fully edit the array in front of me before I move on to the next. This may mean jumping around the index to also edit related arrays, and sometimes I will go back to re-edit an array if I change my approach, but generally speaking, I systematically move through the index.

With each array, I am first of all looking for clarity. Does the main heading and any subheadings make sense? If there are subheadings, I look to see if any can be combined or reworded, or if subheadings need to be added for unruly locators. I consider if anything needs to be double posted, and check to make sure that is done properly. I consider and check cross-references. I investigate any notes I may have left for myself. I also spot-check a few locators to make sure I understood the text properly. I may also run a quick search of the PDF to see if I missed any references. I don’t check every locator, which I think would be very time-consuming—to a certain extent, I need to trust that my drafting process was thorough and accurate—but these spot checks do provide peace of mind and I do sometimes find errors.

Reviewing arrays with no subheadings is usually quick, unless I’ve left a note for myself or I decide to spot check. Arrays with subheadings take more time. If an arrays has 20+ subheadings, I may spend as much as twenty or more minutes making sure that the array is in order. I often find the larger the book, the larger the index, the more subheadings there will be, and the longer editing will take.

Considering my process, I do wonder if I can shave off time. I could spot check a little less, especially for simple arrays with no subheadings, trusting that I picked up what was necessary. I can also pay more attention, when drafting, to larger arrays, so that editing them isn’t so onerous. I could also explore using more macros and patterns for batching tasks such as double-posting or removing subheadings. What I like about my process, though, is that it is thorough and I can clearly see what is completed and what is still to come. Editing line by line helps to keep my thoughts in order.

Other Approaches to Editing

My approach to editing is not the only approach, of course. I’ve mentioned making multiple passes. I also know of indexers who do a quick edit at the end of each day, while drafting, so that the draft is cleaner. I’ve also heard indexers who say that they do such a thorough job drafting that the editing process only takes them a couple of hours. I don’t know how that works for them. I seem to need a lengthier editing process for the index to gel and come together. And that’s okay. We are all different. What matters is that you find a process that works for you.

I find it interesting to hear how others index, even if it is not something I would do myself. I hope this glimpse into my process gives you something to think about.

Article
June 25, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When Subheadings Are Not So Useful

I love subheadings. They add so much to an index, breaking down long strings of locators into smaller chunks, highlighting meaning distinctions, and gathering related entries into lists so readers only need to search in one place. As I discuss in my last reflection, subheadings can also reflect the story that the text is telling. Well-written subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful.

But…in indexing there is always a but. Occasionally, a project comes along that proves the exception. 

This happened with a recent index I wrote, for To See What He Saw: J.E.H. MacDonald and the O’Hara Years, 1924-1932, by Stanley Munn and Patricia Cucman (Figure 1 Publishing, 2024). J.E.H. MacDonald was a Canadian painter and a member of the Group of Seven. He fell in love with the landscape around Lake O’Hara, in the Rocky Mountains, and spent several summers there painting. This book takes an interesting approach to MacDonald. Over the course of almost twenty years, the authors sought to identify the exact locations where MacDonald painted. The bulk of the book is composed of a brief discussion of each of the O’Hara paintings, alongside a photograph of what the scene looks like today. The rest of the book is composed of an introduction, an overview of each of MacDonald’s eight trips, and excerpts from MacDonald’s diaries and other writings. The result is a beautifully illustrated coffee-table book. 

The instructions from the press were to only index the paintings, people, and places. While narrow in scope, there isn’t too much else discussed, and these are what readers are most likely to want to find, so I thought the instructions reasonable. Figure 1 Publishing is also very good at providing clear specifications for how long the index can be. For this book, the specs were 55-60 characters per line, for 675 lines total. 

I quickly realized that the book mentions a lot of paintings and places. The book discusses 226 paintings, almost all of them by MacDonald. With each painting taking up at least a line, some of them more, the paintings alone fill up about a third of the index. The rest of the index is mostly places—mountains, lakes, creeks, trails, huts—in and around Lake O’Hara that MacDonald either painted or visited. In comparison, only a few people are mentioned.

I also realized that the book contains a lot of repetition. For example, the same mountain may appear in a couple dozen different paintings. That mountain is mentioned again in the overviews of MacDonald’s trips, and then again in MacDonald’s diaries. This kind of repetition makes sense given how the book describes the same events and paintings from different angles, but it does mean that the mentions add up. Arrays with especially long strings of locators include Cathedral Mountain (49 page references), Hungabee Mountain (39 references), Odaray Bench (34 references), Lake McArthur (32 references), and Lake Oesa (27 references).

Normally, I would add subheadings to these arrays. Asking readers to look up each page reference is a big ask. But for this index, I left those strings, for paintings and places, intact. 

Not using subheadings was a conscious decision, and one I didn’t make lightly. My initial instinct was to find subheadings. But as I indexed and considered the entries, I also realized that subheadings would not be so useful in this particular index. Wanting a second opinion and to avoid surprising the press with a departure from my usual approach, I also queried the editor I was working with and got their approval.

I decided to not use subheadings for two reasons. One, I realized that too many subheadings would quickly make the index too long. Unfortunately, space constraints can sometimes mean putting aside the index that you want to write for the index that fits. In these situations, I need to be strategic about picking and choosing the subheadings that will have the biggest impact, while also being okay with other arrays not having subheadings. 

More importantly, though, for this book, I couldn’t think of subheadings that I was satisfied with. For subheadings to be effective, they need to clearly articulate additional information that readers can use to narrow their search. But what if there are no clear distinctions between locators? In that case, I think the long strings of locators should be left alone. It is not helpful to introduce artificial distinctions or to get so granular that context is lost. 

As I mentioned, this book contains a lot of repetition. Places either appear in MacDonald’s paintings, are places that MacDonald visited, or both. This doesn’t provide much to hang a wide range of subheadings. 

I briefly considered listings all of the paintings that each mountain or other feature appears in, along with a subheading for MacDonald’s presence at. For example, 

Cathedral Mountain: MacDonald at; in painting 1; in painting 2; in painting 3; in painting 4; in painting 5; etc…

But this approach presents a few problems. Some arrays would have been enormous, with a dozen or two subheadings for each of the paintings. Besides the space issue, I’m not convinced that listing each painting would have been meaningful to readers. Would readers remember the titles of individual paintings? In many cases, multiple paintings shared the same title. Thankfully, the authors give each painting a unique alphanumeric code, which I included in the index to differentiate. For example, “Lake O’Hara (25-1.3(S))” and “Lake O’Hara (30-3.1).” But I imagine it would still be difficult remembering which is which. Alternatively, I could have created a subheading for “in paintings,” but that would have still resulted in a long string of locators, as would the subheading “MacDonald at.” “MacDonald at” also isn’t very useful since readers can presumably assume that MacDonald was there, as that is the focus of the book. 

Given the space constraint and that either way—with a couple of generic subheadings or without subheadings—the arrays would have long strings of locators, I decided it was best to keep the arrays simple and to forego subheadings. This does mean that readers will need to search through each locator, though readers should also quickly notice the repetition, and it is all there for the dedicated searcher. 

This isn’t to say that I avoided subheadings entirely. I did use them in a few places, mostly for people, though even with people I found it difficult to avoid longer strings of locators. Many of these references are brief mentions and again reflect the repetition throughout the book. For example, here are two arrays for MacDonald’s friend, George Link, and wife, Joan.

Link, George K.K.
     about, 234, 343n83
     Lake O’Hara Trails Club and, 340n25
     MacDonald and, 82, 91, 104, 107, 113, 114, 143, 215, 224, 233, 234, 239, 243, 249, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 264, 294, 301, 307, 308, 310
     photographs, 246, 260

MacDonald, Joan
     encouragement from to travel west, 13, 202, 205
     letters to, 93, 96, 115, 120, 121, 122, 131, 167, 175, 200, 203, 204, 205–6, 211–12, 229, 230–31, 236, 240, 256, 265
     Links and, 341n47
     MacDonald’s departure west and, 250
     mentions in MacDonald’s diary, 304, 308
     O’Hara trip with MacDonald, 36, 123, 191, 217, 221, 222, 223–24, 259
     photo album, 224

While I highly encourage you to include subheadings and to make sure that subheadings are clear, specific, and meaningful, I think it is also worthwhile considering the exceptions to the rule. I hope that my approach to the index for To See What He Saw, about J.E.H. MacDonald’s paintings in and around Lake O’Hara, is helpful for considering when subheadings may not be useful. If there is a lot of repetition in the text, if it is difficult to find meaningful distinctions, and if there is a hard space constraint, then it is okay to have long strings of undifferentiated locators. It is not ideal, but it may still be the best solution for that particular text and index.

Article
May 14, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Indexing Yellowstone’s Wolves

It is not too often that I have the privilege of indexing an entire series. It is also not every index in which structure plays such a prominent role. I mean, structure—deciding which entries and arrays to create, where to place them within the index, and how they relate to each other—is always important, but for some indexes structure can play a heightened role.

I recently indexed the fifth volume in the Alpha Wolves of Yellowstone series, written by Rick McIntyre and published by Greystone Books. Rick has been observing and studying the wolves at Yellowstone National Park for about 25 years. His books are an intimate portrayal of the lives of the wolves, beginning with the first generation that was reintroduced into Yellowstone and continuing up to the present day. Each book typically focuses on one or two key individuals, and from there explores the dynamics within packs, between packs, and the role that wolves play within the Yellowstone ecosystem. I indexed the first volume, The Rise of Wolf 8, in 2019, and the latest volume, Thinking Like a Wolf, will be released later this year.

I highly recommend the series if you are interested in wolves, Yellowstone, or animal conservation. My Grandpa even enjoyed the first couple of volumes, when he was still able to read. I remember visiting and discovering the books in his home. He was pleasantly surprised to learn that I had indexed them, though to be honest, I don’t know if Grandpa ever fully understood what it is I do.

Indexing Wolves

From an indexing standpoint, the books present an interesting puzzle. The focus is squarely on the lives of the wolves, though with a few dozen wolves discussed and mentioned in each book, it can be difficult to remember which is which. Most of the wolves are radio collared and assigned a number (wolf 8, wolf 480, wolf 996, etc…). While the numbers make it easier to differentiate, they can also be difficult to remember. There are also a few wolves without radio collars who are referred to by nicknames, such as Big Blaze, Medium Gray, and Slant.

Another challenge is that while the author does an excellent job of weaving a narrative, there are also a lot of elements in the lives of the wolves that are repetitive. The wolves grow up, they find mates, they raise pups, they hunt, and the next year, if they survive, they do it all over again. They also frequently interact with other packs and other animals, such as bison. Each book typically spans several years, following the lives of the featured wolves. How best to index all of that without making the index too repetitive?

Both of these challenges have to do with structuring the index, which proved to be the biggest challenge. The structure should be meaningful to the subject matter and easy to use. Though once I figured out my approach, I used the same approach across all volumes. For a series, it helps to have the same indexer throughout to maintain consistency, so that readers know what to expect in each subsequent volume. 

In this index profile, I am going to outline how I approached the structure, using examples from the third volume in the series, The Redemption of Wolf 302, which was published in 2021. 

Placing Wolves in Context

As I mentioned, it can be difficult to remember which wolf is which. It can also be difficult to remember which wolf is part of which pack. So, I decided to use the em-dash-modified format to place all of the wolves together within their respective packs.

The value of this approach is that it keeps each pack together. Readers only need to look in one place to see all of the details about that pack. The downside is that this can lead to large arrays. One of the largest in The Redemption of Wolf 302 is for the Slough Creek pack, with 36 subheadings under the main heading and 16 members listed using em dashes.

To give a shorter example, here is the main heading and 4 of the 11 wolves listed under the Agate Creek pack:

Agate Creek wolf pack: background, xxii; Blacktail pack formation and, 200, 201–2; breeding, 108, 160, 207–8; confrontation with Druid Peak pack, 20–22; confrontations with Slough Creek pack, 35, 96; grizzly encounter, 135; humans encounter, 136–37; injured pup, 158, 165; membership changes, 214; pup rearing, 136; size, 23, 206–7; Slough Creek pack’s territory and, 139; visits between related females from other packs, 218; wolf 302’s interest in females, 162

—Big Blaze (alpha male), 197, 201, 206, 208, 209, 214

—wolf 06: introduction, 85, 92, 141; Blacktail pack and, 200–201, 208–11; future of, 245; hunting abilities, 211; independent living, 214, 220; interest in wolf 302, 163; photographs, plate 7, plate 8; relationship with sister, 136; return to Agate pack, 207–8

—wolf 471. See under Lava Creek wolf pack

—wolf 472 (alpha female): avoidance of Slough Creek pack, 35; breeding, 108, 160, 207–8; confrontation with Druid Peak pack, 21; disturbance from humans, 137; pregnancies and pups, 85, 92–93, 135, 214; relationship with wolf 113, 106–7

Individuals vs. Packs

Using this structure, I also differentiate between discussions about the pack as a whole and discussions about the individual members within that pack. In the example above, the initial set of subheadings under the “Agate Creek wolf pack” main heading are about the pack as a whole. Those discussions generally involve multiple members of the pack or, in the case of the injured pup, an unnamed member. Those subheadings also provide an overview of the pack’s activities.

Specific discussions and mentions about each member are found under each specific wolf. There is some overlap between the pack-level subheadings and the specific members. For example, under the alpha female wolf 472, the subheadings for “breeding” and “confrontation with Druid Peak pack” are also under “Agate Creek wolf pack.” This reflects the fact that pack-level activities involve specific wolves, which are often mentioned, and so double-posting is necessary. Though I also try to honor this distinction between pack and individuals, and not everything needs to be double-posted. 

Directing Readers

With so many wolves, and with the wolves indexed under their respective packs, it is also important to clearly direct readers to where the wolves can be found. I’ve done this in two ways.

One, all of the wolves are listed (not double-posted) as a main entry with a cross-reference to their respective pack. With 45 numbered wolves in this volume, this makes for a very long list of cross-references in the W section of the index. While it looks awkward, I think it is the clearest way to direct readers. For example,

Big Blaze. See under Agate Creek wolf pack

wolf 21. See under Druid Peak wolf pack

wolf 629. See under Slough Creek wolf pack

Two, some of the wolves leave their birth packs and either join a different pack or help establish a new pack. Some wolves move multiple times. For these wolves, I also include cross-references from their former packs to their new pack. For example,

Agate Creek wolf pack

—wolf 590. See under Slough Creek wolf pack

—wolf 642. See under Blacktail wolf pack

I chose not to double-post the wolves because I think the wolves make the most sense within the contexts of their packs. I want readers to be able to see the full picture. With so many wolves, I think it also helps readers if the wolves are handled consistently, so readers come to expect that the wolves will always be in a certain place. Also, with such a long list of wolves in the W section, I think that list is easier to scan if they are all cross-references, instead of cross-references mixed with page numbers.

Labeling the Alphas

To further differentiate the wolves, especially the leaders, I also decided to use glosses to label the alpha males and females. These wolves tend to be discussed more, and I thought a gloss would help readers identify them more easily. For example, under the Blacktail pack:

Blacktail wolf pack

—Big Brown (alpha male): as beta male, 207; Blacktail pack formation and, 206, 215; breeding, 203, 208, 209; mention, 218; name, 201; as new alpha male, 241; pup rearing, 228

—wolf 693 (alpha female): introduction, 92; aggression against sister, 136, 200, 211; Blacktail pack formation and, 201, 215; breeding, 203, 207, 208–9, 212; denning, 218; photograph, plate 8; pup rearing, 219, 222, 224, 225, 227; in Quadrant pack’s territory, 235, 236, 238, 241; relationship with wolf 302, 214, 237; unpopularity, 216

Indexing Repetitive Elements

As I also mentioned, one of the challenges of indexing these books is that wolves tend to do the same sorts of things throughout their lives. If all goes well, the wolves will breed and raise a new litter of pups every year. The wolves also hunt, encounter other animals, and interact, sometimes aggressively, with other packs.

I decided that it did not make sense to organize the arrays chronologically, as in a new subheading for each litter of pups. That would greatly lengthen the index and make it more difficult to read. Instead, I decided to gather like happenings together, regardless of year or the number of times it happened. For example, under Agate Creek’s wolf 472, above, I include all references to her pregnancies and pups into one subheading. 

I also use similar wording for subheadings throughout the arrays. As seen for the Agate Creek pack, above, I have subheadings for “confrontation with Druid Peak pack” and “confrontation with Slough Creek pack,” as well as “grizzly encounter” and “humans encounter.” This helps to signal to readers that something similar is happening in each subheading, and it helps to keep double-posts, such as under the Druid Peak and Slough Creek packs, consistent throughout the index. 

To give another example, elk are among wolves’ preferred prey, with the book describing multiple hunts. In the array for elk, I differentiate the hunts by pack and by wolves, which are also double-posted under those packs and wolves.

elk: breeding season and, 65; calves, 222; conflict between packs over, 22, 98, 202; hunting by Druid Peak pack, 38, 88, 112, 141, 142, 143–44, 149, 151, 163–64, 176–77, 179–80, 185–86, 222, plate 4; hunting by Slough Creek pack, 16–17, 45, 53, 57, 120–21, 127–28, 165, 176–77, 191, 195; hunting by wolf 06, 211; hunting success rate, 185; injuries from, 180–84; near den sites, 41, 187–88; scabies, 149–50; shortage of, 217; wolf 302’s fear of carcasses, 112–13

 

When structuring an index, every entry has its place. 

This is especially true for the books in the Alpha Wolves of Yellowstone series. Containing a lot of wolves, and a lot of details about wolves being wolves, the index entries needed to be structured in a way that made sense for the subject matter and was easy for readers to navigate. 

I hope I have accomplished that with my approach. While every index has a structure, I needed to think more deeply and be more creative in my approach for this series. I also hope that these examples give you some ideas for what is possible and for how to approach a book with unusual needs.

Article
March 19, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

Making a Plan Before Starting an Index, How to

I found myself thinking last week about the value of making a plan before starting an index. It is something I do as part of my indexing practice. But what do I mean by making a plan? While I discuss elements of making a plan in my book (especially in the “Get Ready” section, though the whole book, really, is to help you make a plan to tackle your index), I don’t think I’ve previously pulled together what it is I mean when I am beginning an index.

So, assuming you understand the basic elements and process for writing an index, and you have received the page proofs from the client and are getting ready to start the index, how can you go about making a plan? 

For me, making a plan can be broken down into answering the following six questions.

  1. What is the book about? This question is about determining the focus and scope of the book. I read the book’s description on the publisher’s website, if available. I also read the table of contents, and maybe skim the introduction and a couple of chapters. I want to get a feel for the main topics and headings that I will be picking up. With this broad sense of the book in mind, I may also begin thinking about how to translate that into the index’s structure.
  2. Who is the audience? Beyond what the book is about, each index should be tailored to its audience. Will readers prefer a detailed index or a lighter index? Are readers picking up this book to answer a specific question or for entertainment? What does the audience already know about this topic, and what will they expect to find? Similar to determining what the book is about, considering the audience is also about focus and scope. Which details are relevant, and which irrelevant? Depending on the audience, not all details need to be picked up.
  3. How much space is available for the index? This is a question to confirm with the client. If I can have all the space that I want, then space isn’t a factor in my decision-making. If there is a strict page or line limit, then I may need to make decisions about structure or which entries to include or exclude in order to fit. Planning ahead, I may consider using fewer subheadings, for example, or to outright exclude certain categories of details to ensure that the priority entries make the cut.
  4. Does the book contain any specific indexing challenges? For example, are there a lot of illustrations? Are there legal cases that require special formatting? Are there terms from another language that contain diacritics or other special characters? Are there a host of family members that may need differentiating? It is not always possible to anticipate challenges, but if you can, now is a good time to consider your approach so you don’t get hung up partway through the index.
  5. What is the publisher’s preferred style? If you are not familiar with the publisher’s style guide, now is a good time to review. I find it helpful to get the format right from the start, such as alphabetization and locator abbreviations, so I don’t have to think about it later.
  6. What is my schedule? This is partly a question of the deadline to submit the index to the client, as well as a question of my own plan. Which days am I going to work on the index? How much am I aiming to complete each day? When do I want to finish the rough draft and when do I want to finish the final edit? 

All of these plans are, of course, contingent. It may take me longer than I expect to write the rough draft. I may discover an unexpected challenge. I may need to rethink my approach in order to keep the index short enough. Continuing to revise and refine the plan is, for better or worse, part of my indexing process.

But I find there are still benefits to thinking through all of these questions before starting. Knowing what the book is about and who the audience is helps to shape the entries I create and cuts down on irrelevant ones. The rough draft is usually a little cleaner and easier to edit. Indexing to the space available helps to avoid needing to make deep and painful cuts late in the process. Identifying challenges early means indexing correctly from the start, rather than going back to fix. Creating a schedule helps to keep me on track.

How much time should you spend making a plan? That is up to you. For many books, I only need about five or ten minutes to assess and make a plan. I may jot down a couple of notes and otherwise will keep my thoughts in my head. I’ve so far indexed around 500 books and many books are similar enough in terms of structure and genre conventions that I quickly know what to expect. Though I also work on some books that are more complicated or unique, and for those I do spend time digging into what it is I am unsure about. I am also aware of some indexers who use a checklist or form to help them prepare for each index. Find a system that works for you.

Writing an index is a constant process of decision-making. Making a plan can help streamline some of that decision-making, and provide confidence that you are setting out on the right path.

Article
March 5, 2024
0 comment
by Stephen

When to Walk Away

A month ago I wrote about my ideal working relationship with publishers, as a valued member of the team. But not every publisher or client is going to be ideal, and sometimes you need to know when to walk away.

Walking away from a project or client is scary. Especially early in my career, I was loath to pass up an opportunity. I needed the paycheck and would say yes to books that I either had no interest in subject-wise, or were beyond my skill level in either subject matter expertise or indexing know-how. Which isn’t always bad. Sometimes being pushed out of my comfort zone shows me where I need to improve or shows me that I am capable of more than I realize. Though sometimes it means that I need to set better boundaries.

Sometimes you need to walk away from a project because of the client, not the actual work. Or at least be willing to walk away.

I faced this situation with two different clients last year, both academic authors. The experiences caused me to reflect on what it is I need from clients in order to make this working relationship worthwhile. Are all of the terms dictated by the client, or do I have some agency too? Though to be fair to both authors, I found them both (or in the one case, the author’s assistant) pleasant and easy to work with. The problem actually lay with their respective universities.

Often when I am hired by an academic author, payment for the index comes from their university, in the form of funding that the author can tap into. This usually means that I need to register with the university as a vendor, which almost always means paperwork. In these two cases, both universities had requirements that I was unable to fulfill. In one case, the university wanted a tax number that I did not have (as a Canadian citizen and resident, with the university in another country, it was a foreign tax number I ordinarily do not need). In the other case, for a university in yet another country, their requirements seemed more suited to a larger company than my one-person freelance outfit. After initial inquiries, neither university seemed to want to budge.

What do I do? Do I invest time and money trying to meet their requirements, which could potentially take months trying to acquire that which I do not have? Or do I walk away? I don’t really want to walk away, because the issue isn’t with the book or with the author. But if being paid is going to be a drain on my time and resources, the project is no longer so appealing. How much red tape is $1000, or even $2000, worth?

In both cases I decided to be honest with the authors. It also helped that they had started the vendor registration process early, before the proofs were ready for indexing, so there was still time to find another indexer if necessary. I explained why I was unable to meet all of the vendor registration requirements. I asked if the university would be willing to waive the problematic requirements. I politely stated that if the requirements were not waived, then I would regretfully need to withdraw from the project and they would need to find another indexer who would be a better fit.

I felt anxious threatening to pull out of a project I had previously agreed to do. I didn’t know how the author or the university would react. I also felt okay at the prospect of losing the client and project. There was still time for another project to come along to fill that time slot in my schedule and it felt good to protect and value my own time and business.

Thankfully, both universities decided, after all, that they could waive the troublesome requirements. I don’t fully know what happened on their end, but the authors decided to advocate to keep me as their indexer and the university administrators found a way to make it happen. A happy outcome for everyone, at least from my perspective.

These experiences taught me a few lessons:

  • Know my boundaries. As an indexer, I am here to serve my clients, which involves dealing with payment and paperwork. Some paperwork is reasonable. But I also want to enjoy my work, and I only have a finite amount of time. To keep my business sustainable and enjoyable, I need to know and enforce my boundaries, which may mean saying no or goodbye to certain books or clients. I know I can’t serve everyone, so I may as well focus on the books and clients that are the best fit.
  • Always ask. Administrative requirements may not be set in stone. While the answer may not always be what I want to hear, it is worth asking if changes can be made (and letting the client know what I am willing and not willing to do) before making a final decision about a client or project.  
  • Learn to say no. I wish I was better at saying no, and that I was better at it earlier in my career. Turning down projects is tough, especially when offers are scarce. But if you are a newer freelancer, practice saying no, and maybe actually say it sometimes. This circles back to boundaries. Know what kind of work is too far out of your comfort zone. Know what level of red tape you are willing to deal with. It may be difficult in the moment to turn down a project or client, but your future self will thank you. 

Have you ever walked away from a project? What was that experience like? What did you do to make the situation better? Please feel free to reply below in the comments. I am curious to hear your experience.

Article
May 9, 2023
0 comment
by Stephen

Is Over-Indexing Really a Time-Saving Strategy

I’ve been thinking about a piece of common sense advice that I was reminded of a few months ago. You may have heard it too. It goes like this: on your first pass through the book, pick up more than is necessary, because it is quicker to go back and trim than to go back and pick up a second time.

The assumption is that reading the text and picking up entries is time-consuming. Which is true. Carefully reading the book and selecting terms does take time. Also assumed is that you may not know, on the first pass, what is indexable and what can be left. Which is also true. By picking up an abundance of entries, all bases are covered. But is over-indexing and then trimming the extraneous entries really a faster approach?

To some extent, yes. I certainly pick up entries knowing that they may not make the final cut. But I still try to choose entries within certain parameters. This advice can get you into trouble when you have no filters (or very few filters) in place.

Consider this scenario, which I have seen and done myself earlier in my career: You get a book to index and the publisher informs you that the index can be no longer than 700 lines. Which sounds like a lot. Excited to start, and worried about missing relevant discussions, you jump into the project, typing up whatever entry seems like it might mean something to someone. Finishing the full draft, you realize that the index is pushing 1,000 lines. Or 1,500 lines. Or maybe even 2,000 lines. Now what?

Trimming an index that is a little longer than it should be usually isn’t a problem and is part of the indexing process. By definition, rough drafts need to be tidied. There are entries that aren’t as important as they originally appeared, or entries that can be combined into one, or subheadings that can be removed. But an index significantly longer than the target length requires more than a trim. It requires deep cuts. Chances are, whole categories of entries need to be removed and the index structure needs to be simplified. Not only has time been spent creating all of those entries, but time will now have to be spent figuring out how to get rid of all those entries. There is also the emotional pain of having to sweep away all that you created.

It is not efficient or effective.

What I try to do instead, before I start the rough draft, is to think about what needs to be in the index. I think about the subject matter and the arguments or stories that the book is telling. I think about who might be reading the book. I think about what kind of book it is, and how readers will use the index. If there is a length limit, I think about how much space there is relative to the number of pages and to how densely the book is written, and I then try to gauge how detailed the index can be. With all of that in mind, I can more easily identify and filter out passing mentions as I read the book. This approach is not perfect—I often still come across potential entries that I am uncertain about, and I may still go back and pick up entries that I have missed—but having a plan means that my rough drafts are closer to being completed. When editing, I can focus on polishing, rather than cutting and rebuilding.

This approach works both when there is a firm length limit, and when there is no limit to how long the index can be. Just because there is unlimited space does not mean that everything is now relevant to the reader. Think ahead about what the audience needs, and filter the text through that lens.

Besides planning ahead, what else can you do to avoid over-indexing getting out of control?

  • Partway through writing the rough draft, stop and assess the number of entries so far. Is the number proportional to how much space is available in the index and/or to how many pages indexed? Being a little over is okay; some trimming is normal. But if you are only halfway through the book and the rough draft is hitting the line limit, then you probably have an over-indexing problem. Stop, think again about what is important to include and what can be excluded, assess and do a preliminary cut of entries so far, and then finish the rest of the rough draft with some new filters in place.
    ​
  • Try running a quick search to see how often a term or name shows up, especially if you are unsure if it is worth including. If it is only mentioned once, then it may not be important. If mentioned multiple times, then probably worth including. But be careful: number of mentions should not be the only criteria for including in the index. The quality of the discussion is also important.
    ​
  • Try using some sort of label or symbol to mark entries that you are unsure about. In Cindex, I can label entries with different colors, and I use red to indicate entries that I may want to cut. These are entries that I am on the fence about—I’ll still pick up so I don’t have to go back later, but I also want to make them easy to identify and delete. Whatever you use to label, remember to remove so that it doesn’t make its way into the printed index.
    ​
  • Practice. Indexing is a skill that takes time to develop. It may take several indexes to figure out how to effectively plan ahead, and how to recognize and filter out passing mentions. And that’s okay. Keep working on it with each index, and you will gradually get the hang of it.

Writing an index is hard work. We can use all the hacks and shortcuts we can get. And that’s what common sense advice is—a way to make indexing easier and hopefully faster. The problem though, is that common sense advice usually doesn’t come with instructions for how best to implement that advice. Used the wrong way, and the advice may end up creating more work.

So yes, over-index, but within limits. Assume that the index will need to be trimmed and that some entries may not make the final draft, but still think carefully about what to include on the first pass. The cleaner the rough draft, the easier and quicker editing will be. Which is the most efficient way to index.