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. 

I had a lot more to write than I initially thought about how I use, or don’t use, cross-references, which is why I have split these reflections into two posts. Cross-references are a versatile tool for redirecting readers around the index. They highlight that beyond alphabetical sort, which imposes a default structure, the structure of the index should be deliberate. The decisions on where and how to phrase and place entries should be conscious, to facilitate the reader’s use of the index. Cross-references support that structure by making sure that readers get to the right place. 

Today I’m going to discuss general cross-references, cross-references from subheadings, and cross-references to and from acronyms. 

General Cross-References

Beyond redirecting to specific entries, cross-references can also redirect to a larger category. For example, “Canada… See also specific prime ministers” or “periodic table… See also specific elements.” This works best when readers can reasonably be expected to know who or what might be included in that category, and if there are several headings within that category, leading to a long list if all hits are included. 

If there are only a few possible cross-references, then I think it is better to list them individually. A general cross-reference implies several potential arrays, and if that is not the case, better to be upfront with the reader and not unintentionally mislead. Similarly, if the audience may not be familiar with the category, a general cross-reference could be a dead end rather than a portal.

I do use general cross-references if the above two conditions are met, but I don’t use them very often.  

Cross-References from Subheadings

Cross-references can also be attached to subheadings, rather than being placed at either the beginning or end of the array. This approach is discussed in the NISO Z39.4-2021 indexing criteria, released in 2021, which is when I became more aware of the practice.

I do sometimes include cross-references from subheadings. There are times when that makes the most sense, given the relationship between cross-reference and (sub)heading. Some indexers are proponents of placing cross-references at the subheading level, I think under the rationale that the more granular the placement, the clearer the relationship. There may also be the assumption that readers will be expecting or searching for certain subheadings, even if the information is actually elsewhere in the index.

While I agree that the relationship between cross-reference and (sub)heading should be clear, I also think that arrays should be easy to scan. I also think that given how indexes are typically written, most readers have been trained, through use, to look for cross-references at either the beginning or end of arrays. So while cross-references at the subheading level does have a place, I’m not convinced it is always or often the best choice.

I’ve noticed two problems in how cross-references from subheadings can be used. The first is that cross-references can become buried. They can be more difficult to spot because they are surrounded by other subheadings and locators. 

The second problem is that the array can feel chopped up, especially if multiple subheadings within the array are cross-references. This is often a scenario of cross-references such as, “financial planning: accountants (see accountants); pensions (see pensions); taxes (see taxes)….” For me, that kind of repetition takes up more space and is difficult to scan, especially if interspersed with locators. I think it takes up less space, is easier to scan, and the relationship between heading and cross-reference is still clear if all of the cross-references are gathered together at the end of the array, as in, “financial planning…See also accountants; pensions; taxes.”

So when do I use cross-references from a subheading? I am more likely if there is additional information I want to alert the reader to, as in, “financial planning: accountants and, 34-35, 64, 68 (see also accountants)….” In that scenario, the subheading is necessary for the locators specific to that relationship, and there is additional information elsewhere that I think readers might also want to know. But even then, balancing against potentially burying the cross-reference, I may still place the cross-reference at the end.

Index format can also play a role. Cross-references from subheadings are more likely to be buried and be difficult to scan in run-in format, where there are no visual breaks between subheadings. These problems are less noticeable when using indented format. So when considering where to place subheadings, also consider the impact that format may have on the reading experience.

Cross-References To and From Acronyms

Cross-references can also be used with acronyms. If, for example, there is an entry for “Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),” should there be a corresponding entry for “AEC. See Atomic Energy Commission”?

When I first began indexing, I was meticulous about making sure that headings with acronyms were either double-posted or cross-referenced. I think I saw that somewhere as part of indexing best practices. Until I received pushback from an author. The book was on the health care system in Nova Scotia. It contained so many acronyms. The author pointed out that all of the duplicate arrays made the index far too long and difficult to use, and that most of the acronyms sorted near the spelled-out names anyway. I had another look at the index and decided that the author was right. Since then, I’ve mostly stopped double-posting or including cross-references from acronyms. I don’t think it is necessary.

I do have two exceptions to that rule. The first is if the full name and acronym don’t sort close together. A few years later, I indexed a different book on the health care system in Mexico. Again, a lot of acronyms. This time, I believe the acronyms corresponded to the Spanish name of the organization but the spelled-out name was the English translation. For example, “National Commission for Medical Arbitration (CONAMED).” No relationship between the acronym and full term, and so double-posting or cross-references was important to serve readers searching either way.

My second exception is if I know or suspect that readers are more likely to search for the acronym, or if I’m honestly not sure which way readers will search. In a recent index, the author almost exclusively referred to a number of companies by their acronyms. I’m not sure if those companies are commonly known by their acronyms, but I figure anyone reading the book will probably think of the acronym first, so for those, I decided to either double-post or include a cross-reference. For example, “AEP (American Electric Power)” and “American Electric Power (AEP).” 

As I mentioned above, cross-references are versatile. They reflect that an index is multi-dimensional. An index is more than a list that begins at A and ends with Z. Rather, an index is an interwoven series of entries and arrays which can require navigational aids. Cross-references are the primary means by which to redirect readers to the right place and to additional information.

As a very brief introduction, cross-references are like signposts that redirect readers to a different array in the index. Cross-references can either be See references (“aubergine. See eggplant”) or See also references (“Brassica, 34, 56-57, 63. See also cabbage”).

From General to Specific

Perhaps the most common scenario is to direct readers from general information to specific information. This is especially true if the more specific array has subheadings. Instead of double-posting or sub-subheadings, redirecting readers can be more space efficient and easier to read.

One way to think about the levels of information in a book and index is as a cascade. Information flows down, from most broad to most specific. Cross-references usually move in that direction too. To give an example, a book I recently indexed is about the key chemical elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. There is a brief discussion about chemical elements as a whole, and so I’ve included cross-references from the general (elements, chemical) to the specific (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). 

From Specific to General

Can cross-references go in the opposite direction? I don’t want to say never, because it can happen, but I think it is less common. My assumption is that broader terms may be easier to remember, and if readers want to find the broader term, they would have started there anyway. So while I often create cross-references from the general to specific, following the cascade of information, I usually don’t make those cross-references reciprocal.

One exception is if the general term is the preferred term. Going back to the book on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, fertilizer is a significant subject. For the most part, the discussion is about mineral fertilizers (also known as synthetic fertilizers). But while the terms mineral and synthetic fertilizers are defined, they are not actually used a whole lot in the text. Rather, it is implied that “fertilizer” usually means mineral fertilizer. Similarly, I suspect most readers will first search for “fertilizer.” So while I do include main entries for mineral and synthetic fertilizers (mostly for their definitions), I primarily use those entries to cross-reference to fertilizer.

Reciprocal Cross-references

As I mentioned, I don’t often include reciprocal cross-references from specific to general terms. But reciprocal cross-references are important in their own right. I usually use them for related headings that have equal weight. 

By equal weight, I mean that they are at about the same level of granularity or importance. This can include synonyms. Both arrays contain subheadings and/or locators, and readers searching for one may reasonably be interested in the other.

For example, a reader searching for the term “liberty” may also be interested in “freedom.” Facebook, the social media platform, should probably be linked to its parent company, Meta, and vice versa. Terms which belong to the same category can also be linked together with reciprocal cross-references. For example, an index with arrays for electrons, neutrons, and protons could include cross-references between all three terms. 

Preferred Terms

Reciprocal cross-references work best when both arrays contain searchable information. If only one array contains locators, or if there is otherwise a clear preference for one term over others, then a See cross-reference is needed to direct readers to the preferred term.

Preferred terms can come about for a number of reasons. There may be enough locators to warrant subheadings, and so a preferred term is chosen to gather the discussion in one place. The author and text may also emphasize one term over another. Perhaps a certain term is more inclusive or better reflects current usage. Whatever the reason, a See cross-reference anticipates that readers might look elsewhere and points readers in the right direction. 

Cross-References versus Double-Posts

Synonymous terms can raise the question of whether it is better to double-post. If “feelings” and “emotions” are both used in the text, are used in the same way, and used about the same number of times each—they carry about equal weight—then why not double-post under both instead of using cross-references? 

Double-posts and cross-references are like indexing twins. They both serve to provide alternative entry points, and there are situations in which double-posts can be the better option. Instead of sending readers off in a new direction, readers can find the relevant locators right where they are. In the above example, there are times when I have double-posted something like “feelings and emotions” and “emotions and feelings.”

My general rule of thumb is to double-post if there are no subheadings and to use a cross-reference if there are subheadings. Subheadings take up more space, and so it is more space efficient to redirect.

The other reason to choose cross-references is if there is a preferred term. Synonymous and related terms do not always have equal weight. If the text clearly prefers a term, or if a term is clearly preferable for another reason, then that should be reflected in the index

I’ll stop here for now. I’ll write again in a couple of weeks to discuss general cross-references, cross-references from subheadings, and cross-references to and from acronyms.

For now, keep in mind that cross-references are a versatile and powerful tool for shaping how readers navigate the index. If you can map out the structure of the index, with all information in its place, cross-references are the signposts that points readers to where they need to be.

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.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about how subheadings can sometimes be repeated and reused throughout an index. This can be valuable to readers, to signal that the same discussion reappears in different contexts or that different people are involved in the same project. This can also ease the cognitive burden of indexing and save time for the indexer. Subheadings do not need to be reinvented for every array.

As a caveat, repeating and reusing subheadings is not going to work for every index. As with any indexing strategy or technique, the first step is to determine if it is applicable. That said, I find this is a helpful strategy to keep on hand.

Repeating and Reusing Subheadings

Subheadings can be repeated and reused in two senses.

The first is to keep in mind or have written down a set of default subheadings that you can draw upon. These subheadings match common discussions or types of material, and so when those discussions come up when indexing, the subheading is readily at hand to plug in.

Some of mine include the following. Depending on the types of books you index, your list may be different.

about

background

education

establishment

introduction

marriage and family

scholarship on

The second scenario for repeating subheadings is project-specific. I find this most often happens for books with significant, overlapping elements. The overlap means that a subheading is likely needed to indicate that relationship. If overlap is extensive, subheadings are likely be reused.

To give an example, earlier this year I indexed Citizens, Scholars, and Friends: Women in the Canadian Association for Adult Education (1935-1965), by Leona M. English (University of Toronto Press, 2026). The book is about the people in the CAAE, especially women, in the context of a number of significant endeavors undertaken by the CAAE. One of those is the journal Food for Thought. I used the subheading “Food for Thought and” under nineteen different people.

To give another example, a few years ago I indexed Decolonizing Independence: Statecraft in Nigeria’s First Republic and Israeli Interventions, by Lynn Schler (Michigan State University Press, 2022). That book discussed overlapping regions, political parties, and politicians. I decided to repeat subheadings across those arrays to give a sense of those interconnections. For example, for the party Action Group and it’s leader, Obafemi Awolowo, the subheadings “Israeli relations and” and “joint corporations and” are repeated, as both the party and leader are involved.

Tailoring Subheadings

When repeating and reusing subheadings, one option is to copy and paste, which is essentially double-posting. That is what I did in the two examples above. But in other cases, while there is overlap that lends itself to reuse, the overlap is not exact. The subheading may need to be tailored.

Going back to the Decolonizing Independence example, the locators for “Israeli relations and” don’t quite match between Action Group and Obafemi Awolowo. Yes, both dealt with Israel and often together, but there are a few places where only one or the other is discussed. So while the subheading can be repeated, locators may vary somewhat.

How the subheading is phrased may also need to be adjusted. Again, looking at Action Group and Awolowo, I used the subheadings, “Action Group (AG): leadership crisis and tensions between Akintola and Awolowo” and “Awolowo, Obafemi: Action Group leadership crisis and conflict with Akintola.” Both subheadings refer to the same incident—a leadership crisis within Action Group and tensions with Akintola—and both use the same key terms, but the terms are rearranged to fit their respective main headings. This still counts as reuse, albeit modified.

Double-Posting vs. Asymmetric

Another consideration when repeating subheadings is, do the subheadings need to be double-posted or can the reuse be asymmetric? By asymmetric, I mean that the subheadings are not mirrored in the overlapping arrays.

In the Decolonizing Independence example, the subheadings are essentially double-posted. While taking into account that the locators and phrasing are sometimes tailored, many of the same subheadings can be found under two or more arrays. This reflects that many of the actors are involved in the same projects and events.

In contrast, many of the repeated subheadings in the CAAE are asymmetric. While the subheading “Food for Thought and” appears under nineteen different people, the array for Food for Thought does not contain a reciprocal list of nineteen people. This has to do with the story that each array is telling. Part of the story, for each person, is the projects they were involved in. For Food for Thought, in contrast, the story is about its establishment, growth, and end; key editors; and key topics and contemporary issues that the journal addressed. While I included subheadings for the key editors, a list of everyone involved would add clutter rather than being helpful.

Connecting to the Larger Story

Taking a step back, the single most important point about subheadings I feel like I keep repeating is the need to connect to the larger context. What is this subheading about? How does it connect to the main heading? Why is it relevant?

The same is true when repeating and reusing subheadings, with the addition that repeating subheadings also reflect broad overlaps within the text. These are relationships that can and should be highlighted at different points. When considering whether subheadings should be double-posted or asymmetric, again, how do these arrays overlap? What is the nature of the relationship? What is the larger story to be told?

To better see if there are overlapping elements and relationships, consider sketching a mind map, as I discussed last month. Take a step back from the index to see the major components and how they relate. The overlap could be specific actors, as in Decolonizing Independence, or the overlap could be more in terms of elements, such as people and projects in the CAAE example.  

It may take some practice to think about books in terms of overlapping elements and to be able to see and formulate repeatable and reusable subheadings. I think it is a strategy worth developing. It can remove some of the guesswork out of subheadings while serving readers by indicating multiple entry points from different angles. 

PS. I discuss the Decolonizing Independence example more extensively in my book, Book Indexing: A Step-by-Step Guide, in the chapter on index structure. Check that out if you want to read more.

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.

A couple of weeks ago the American Society for Indexing (ASI) announced that I won the ASI Indexing Award, in the scholarly/technical category, for my index for Dialectics of the Big Bang and the Absolute Existence of the Multiverse, by Gregory Phipps (University of Alberta Press, 2024). 

I am delighted and honored. It is a privilege to win.

I also have to admit the announcement caught me by surprise. I knew it was coming, as I had been informed earlier so the press and I could provide statements for the official announcement, but I did not know when the announcement would be made. As it happened, that was quite a busy day and I didn’t get around to checking my email until the afternoon, and so was taken aback by all of the congratulatory emails. 

So thank you. My thanks to ASI and the judges for the award and to everyone who took the time to write a note. It means a lot to have such wonderful colleagues. 

I also want to thank the University of Alberta Press, specifically Cathie Crooks and Duncan Turner. The U of A Press is unusual for a university press in that they always hire indexers directly. This award would not have happened without their support and encouragement.

I first encountered the U of A Press when I moved to Edmonton ten years ago. I contacted the press and Mary Loy Roy, the then-production editor, kindly invited me over for tea and a tour of the office. We chatted about indexing and she hired me a few months later for a project. 

I’ve continued to work with the U of A Press since then, now usually working with Duncan, the current production editor, and also sometimes with Cathie, the associate director. It is due to their prompting and encouragement that I submitted the Dialectics of the Big Bang index to the ASI Indexing Award. I would’t have otherwise as philosophy is not my strong suit. But they asked, and I agreed this index was the best candidate out of the three possible U of A Press indexes I could have submitted—and the coolest subject, if I may say so—and so here we are. 

So thank you, Cathie and Duncan, for all of your support over the years. It is an honor to work with a press that cares so much about indexes and for fostering good relationships with their freelancers.

I also want to thank the author, Gregory Phipps, for his kind congratulations. As I mentioned, the U of A Press hires directly and any queries I have for the author usually go through Duncan. So I haven’t been in contact with Gregory, but I am thankful he wrote such a fascinating book, I appreciate his trust in having Duncan ask me to write the index, and I am grateful that Gregory is delighted with the index as well.

Thoughts on Indexing Dialectics of the Big Bang

Before I close, I also want to go over three aspects of writing this index. The judges very kindly described the index as appearing “effortless.” I am glad that that was the impression, as I think well-written indexes should be easy to access and navigate. Writing the actual index was anything but.

Dialectics of the Big Bang and the Absolute Existence of the Multiverse is a complicated interdisciplinary book, combining philosophy and science. Philosophy is one of those subjects I struggle to wrap my head around, and so I usually turn down philosophical texts. But the addition of the Big Bang and multiverse proved too tempting and I talked myself into accepting this book anyway, thinking maybe the science aspect would somehow make the book easier to index?

Famous last words.  

I still somehow got through to the end. It is a relief to have confirmation from the judges that the index worked out. 

So, what were some of the challenges writing this index and how did I piece it all together?

Delineating What is What

This book covers a lot. On the philosophy side, the book focuses on Hegel and five different dialectics, such as being and nothing, finite and the infinite, and space and time. Other concepts are also discussed, such as being, consciousness, and determinate content. On the science side, the Big Bang is important, obviously. The first second of the Big Bang is also broken down into six epochs, including the Planck epoch, grand unification epoch, and inflationary epoch. The book also discuses elementary particles, such as bosons, electrons, and fermions, as well as the four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, gravity, and strong and weak nuclear forces. On top of all of that is the multiverse, which required four separate arrays. 

So the first challenge is simply to understand what all is in the book, what needs to go into the index, and how all these elements relate to each other. For a book this complicated, mind mapping is your friend. When finished writing the rough draft, or even partway through the rough draft, take a step back, identify the various components, and see how they link together. 

Opposition and Interdependence

The next challenge was figuring out what could be indexed together and what needed to be kept apart. I am mainly thinking here of the dialectics, which I decided to keep together. For example, the index contains main headings for “being and nothing,” “finite and the infinite,” and “repulsion and attraction,” with cross-references from the second term. The alternative would be to have separate arrays for each element of the dialectic, with subheadings and locators double-posted under each, but that seemed unnecessarily complicated. Each dialectic is generally discussed together, as a single concept, and I thought the index should reflect that. Keeping the dialectics together also meant less double-posting and gave readers a single place to search. Following a similar rationale, I also created a single array for “absolute existence (absolute existence of the multiverse).”

That said, I also needed to be careful to not conflate related yet distinct concepts. So, the index also contains arrays for “being,” “finitude,” and “nothingness,” for example, which are discussed in and of themselves, distinct from the dialectics 

The index is complicated regardless. But I was still looking for ways to make the index less complicated. Deciding what could be kept together, such as the dialectics, was one way to keep the index simple, so to speak, by having a single place for each concept or term. Having clear distinctions between similar concepts was another way to keep the index “simple.” No unnecessary complexity.

Relationships

Being such an interdisciplinary book, relationships are everywhere and need to be reflected in the index. This is partly done through cross-references, but mostly through double-posting. To give a couple of examples, “consciousness” is both a main heading and appears as a subheading in eighteen other arrays. The dialectic “finite and the infinite” appears as a subheading in fifteen other arrays. The result is an index that is an interconnected web. Readers should be able to go to any array and find everything they need to know about that topic, including how that term relates to other terms.

All of that double-posting takes time and thought. See mind mapping to clarify relationships. I also recommend double-posting early, while creating the entries, instead of waiting to double-post at the end. I know some indexers save double-posting for later. While that can work if the number of double-posts are limited, if double-posts are extensive, I think trying to do them all at once retroactively could be overwhelming and confusing. I think it is easier to plan ahead, create them early so that the emerging index structure is visible, and then check and adjust as needed while editing the index.

Dialectics of the Big Bang was fascinating to read, and a real puzzle to piece the index together. My takeaway is that while difficult books are certainly slow and challenging to index, writing a good index is possible if I can identify all of the moving pieces and figure out a good plan. Understanding the book is half the equation, while understanding how an index works is the other half. If you hone your craft, you can index just about anything. (Though I think I’ll still pass on most philosophy books, thank you.)