And yet, I am still reminded that subject expertise is really helpful to have, if for no other reason than to make indexing more enjoyable. It is a distinctly peculiar and unpleasant feeling to finish indexing for the day and to think, “I have no idea what I did today.” To not understand any of the concepts well enough to be able to describe them.

There are definitely subjects for which I lack sufficient background. I also tend to struggle with scholarly books which are written at a highly abstract, theoretical level. When I studied for my BA in political science, I did much better in comparative politics than political philosophy. And yet I still sometimes find myself indexing books which I am not well-suited for. 

There are various reasons why. One is if I didn’t fully vet or understand what the book is about. Contents don’t always match their descriptions. Another is if there is some aspect that does interest me, and so I talk myself into thinking that the index will be easier than it actually is. Or, the project is from a regular or newish client and I want to maintain a good relationship with them. Lastly, the client has accepted my quote. If I am not sure about a project or if I anticipate the index to be difficult, I often quote high, kind of hoping that the price will deter the client. But sometimes the client accepts anyway (which is maybe a sign that I need to raise my prices overall), and I am committed to honoring our agreement. 

So how do I index books that I don’t understand? And how do I deliver indexes that the client will still—hopefully—be happy with? I use a few tactics to help me through.

• Conduct research. I identify what I don’t understand and I look it up. This can mean looking up definitions for unfamiliar words and concepts, or this can be background information to provide context for the discussions in the book. If I am in contact with the author, research can also mean directly asking the author. I don’t want to spend too much time on research, and by the time I am finished I am still not an expert, but a little bit of additional knowledge can go a long way.
• Leverage what I do understand. While I may struggle to understand the central premise or key concepts, there are often concepts and sections that I do recognize, even if dimly. Finding those can feel like finding a life preserver, a sense of traction and progress. The temptation is the latch onto what I recognize, treating it as low-hanging fruit, and neglect the parts of the book that I do not understand. I still need to somehow find a way to index those parts which make my head spin, but having something that I recognize can both inspire confidence and provide an entry point, a sort of backdoor or side entrance to the rest of the book.
• Go slow. Don’t be in a hurry to complete the rough draft or to edit. Which can be tough if a deadline is looming, but rushing and skimming won’t help me understand. Instead, read slowly. Re-read sections as needed. Spend more time reviewing and double-checking entries when editing the index. Spend time reflecting on the text and writing summaries. Engaging more deeply, while slow, often leads to better understanding.
• Lean on indexing technique. I also fall back on my knowledge of indexing. I may not fully understand the text, but I know how to read a text. I know how to identify regular discussions and supermain discussions. I know how to pay attention to chapter titles and headings, and how to  tease out terms. I know how to structure the index and how to make arrays and entries clear. Despite gaps in my knowledge, I can still put together the best index I can. 
• Fall back on pointing to information. The index, after all, is to provide access to information; it is not about rewriting the book. If I can at least identify key terms and concepts, I can point to them, even if I don’t actually understand the discussions. This is not ideal, as I fear that headings and subheadings will not be as clearly written if I don’t understand what they point towards, but hopefully I can still manage to point readers in the right general direction.

Ironically, I often get the most praise for the indexes I most struggled to write. Maybe I overcompensated for my lack of familiarity by taking extra care with the index, or maybe the client, knowing that it was a difficult subject and having low expectations for the index, was pleasantly surprised. Either way, while those indexes were not easy, it does reinforce that I can index what I don’t know.

The best option remains saying no to the project. That is the most enjoyable option, avoiding work that I struggle with. That is also usually the easier and more financially lucrative option, as the index is less work to write. I do turn down projects that I don’t think are a good fit. But sometimes I find myself with a challenge anyway.

It helps to have strategies and a plan for getting through difficult books. I hope the above gives you some ideas. As indexers, we may see ourselves as specialists within certain subjects (and may have the degrees and work experience to back that up), but clients often see us as generalists. Inevitably, a project is going to come along that is not a good fit, subject-wise. If you accept, lean into your indexing expertise. You can still deliver an excellent index.

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. 

Indexing is governed by a lot of rules and conventions. Every indexer, including myself, tend to have their favorite strategies and style preferences. These are important for shaping and refining the index. But is that all there is?

I’ve recently challenged myself to take a big step back. While conventions and strategies are important, and I’ve discussed many here, I also sometimes feel like I am getting lost among the weeds. What is the underlying why for these conventions, and why do they work in certain situations and not others? I also sometimes notice myself and others holding onto strategies as if they are immutable rules, even when they are no longer working.

The problem is that no single strategy will work all the time. Inevitably something about the text and index will be different and will require a different solution. Being too committed to any particular approach can lead to blindspots.

So, attempting to strip away all the various ways that an index can be pieced together, what are some fundamental principles? Can a larger framework be pulled together? Is there a way to contextualize all of those rules and conventions?

This is my current attempt.

1. Every index is going to be different. This may seem self-evident, but I think there can be the misconception, especially by those less familiar with indexing, that writing an index is about following a certain template. This is indexing as a mechanical process. In the AI age, perhaps indexing as an algorithmic process. For example, this can manifest as assuming that writing an index consists of matching page numbers to keywords, and that identifying appropriate keywords always follows a certain pattern. This can also manifest as committing to a specific convention or strategy no matter what, because that is the way that an index is supposed to be or because that is what is expected. What this misconception misses is that every text, and hence every index, is going to be different. Guidelines, conventions, and preferences need to be tailored to the subject matter, the audience, client preferences, and space constraints.
2. Be attentive to the big picture. Every index is about something, in the same way that every book is about something. The index should reflect all that the book is about. The big picture also includes the larger context of how the index will be used, who will use the index, and any constraints on length or style. These factors all shape the index. Lose sight of the big picture, and the index will likely either not fully reflect the book and/or not meet the needs of its users. Instead of thinking of the index as a collection of headings and subheadings, an excellent index is more than the sum of its parts, revealing something of the essence of the book. 
3. Index at multiple levels. Details matter, from the big picture on down. Entries and arrays for the different layers of information contained within the book reflects how the book is written, provides structure, and serve the various ways that readers may search. 
4. Always refer back to the larger context. The best way to ensure relevance and clarity is to be clear about why this heading or subheading matters in the larger context of the book and index. If you, as the indexer, doesn’t know, the index user probably won’t know either.
5. Understand the tools of the trade. Indexing conventions, guidelines, strategies, and preferences are tools for shaping the index. Know the differences between tools, and when they are applicable and when they are not. Be able to explain and justify the choice of tools. If certain conventions or strategies are not working in an index, then change or adapt. 
6. Remain creative and reflective. The process of writing an index is dynamic. Circling back around to the first principle above, every index will be different. While go-to strategies and styles can be a good starting point, it is important to keep sight of the big picture and to continually adjust as needed. Writing an index is ultimately a creative endeavor, requiring careful problem-solving to create the best index for that particular text and constraints. 

I still surprise myself when an index turns out to be more difficult than I expect. There is almost always something different.

To give an example, I’ve indexed several hiking guides for a long-time client. I consider these to be easy books to index. I have a system all figured out, for the types of entries I want to pick up and how to structure and style those entries. And yet the last hiking guide I received included significantly more Indigenous place names than previous volumes. I applaud the author and publisher for making an effort to identify, include, and educate readers on local Indigenous place names, and I want to support that effort in the index. The problem was that the space available for the index remained about the same. As I realized partway through, there was no way the index, with the addition of all those new place names, was going to fit. I needed to stop, reprioritize what to include, and rethink what I choose for main entry points.

I believe if we, as indexers, can approach each index as a fresh start, assuming upfront that something about the text and index will be different and will require creative problem-solving, and be able to keep the big picture in mind throughout the indexing process, then all of the other details will sort themselves out.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Today’s question is:

A couple of times you referred to a mind map. Creating and using a mind map is a topic I’d benefit from your addressing in a future newsletter, if possible.

Certainly. I’m happy to discuss mind maps. In the context of indexing, I think creating a mind map is about taking a step back and seeing the index as a whole.

What are Mind Maps?

A mind map is a visual exploration of a topic or question. It can be used for different purposes, such as to brainstorm, summarize, or gather related information. It is a simple exercise, quickly done, to provide clarity before moving forward with whatever the larger task is.

To create a mind map, begin by writing the central topic or question in the center of a piece of paper and draw a circle around it. Then write related ideas around that central bubble and draw circles around those. Use lines to connect bubbles, to represent interconnected ideas. Expand outwards as needed. While mind maps can be as detailed as you want, I find, because of the limitations of a page, that mind maps work best when focused on the bigger picture. I am seeking to understand the main ideas and themes within a book and index. Keep ideas short. Beyond linking ideas, there is no need to try to rank or otherwise organize bubbles. The mind map is meant to grow organically, as ideas and relationships present themselves.

That is more or less what a mind map is. Here is an example of a mind map I wrote for an index I recently finished, on immigration in Canada.

There are several resources online (see, for example, a written description here and a video here) so I won’t go into further detail. Several apps are also available for creating mind maps, but I find pen and paper work just as well. Once I’ve organized my thoughts, I rarely keep the mind map beyond the project. 

Mind Mapping as an Indexing Tool

I find mind mapping works best as a reflective tool. Once I’ve completed the rough draft and before I begin editing, a mind map is a chance for me to review what the book is about and how all of the main topics fit together. I can then compare the mind map to the index. Do all of the main topics have arrays? Does the structure of the index makes sense, given how topics relate to each other? Where are cross-references needed? Is there anything I need to add, adjust, or remove as I edit the index?

Mind maps can also be used at other points of the indexing process, particularly at any point in which you feel stuck. You could try a mind map when beginning the index, perhaps after reading the table of contents and introduction, to clarify the main topics you need to look for and to begin thinking about structure. A mind map may also be useful at the end of the indexing process, as a final check that all topics are accounted for and that the index structure makes sense. A mind map can also be used for a subsection of the index, if you are struggling with a specific chapter or concept. A mind map doesn’t take long—maybe five minutes—so feel free to experiment and create one at any time you need to take a step back and check in with yourself and the index.

I think the value of a mind map is that is creates an opportunity to stop and reflect. The limited space on the page enforces big-picture thinking because there is not enough room for all the little details. As indexers, we can be prone to missing the forest for the trees. I’ve seen this in my own work and I’ve seen this in the work by other indexers. We can get so focused on picking up or editing the details that we lose sight of what is relevant or of how topics relate to each other. We may commit to a strategy that doesn’t really work because we haven’t stopped to think of how it fits within the larger index. Taking a moment to stop and map out topics and relationships is a way to take a step back, reflect, and see how everything fits together. With that renewed clarity, we can more confidently move forward with a plan to reach the finished index.

A mind map is not the only tool for taking a step back. Sometimes, instead of creating a mind map, I will instead write a one-paragraph summary of the book. I use the template: “This book is about…. The main topics/themes are…. The book also discusses….” This allows me to quickly sketch the metatopic, supermain discussions, and anything else that seems relevant and I want to include in the index. For example, for another index I recently wrote, I would have written this:

This book is a history of the pediatrics department at the University of Manitoba. The department is closely related to, yet distinct from, the Children’s Hospital; most faculty also work at the hospital. The book profiles multiple doctors and other staff, along with diseases and medical specialties that the doctors work within. The book also begins with a history of pediatric medicine and children’s hospitals. Space for the index is limited, to priority needs to be given to people, diseases, specialties, and other issues directly related to the department and hospital.

This summary tells me that both the pediatrics department and Children’s Hospital need separate arrays and that I need to be careful to distinguish them; that I should include an array for the history of pediatrics; and that much of the book—and index—should focus on the people, diseases, and specialities discussed, though I also need to be careful about length. Having the big picture in mind should help guide my editing decisions so I can finish the index more quickly and effectively. (As it happened, I misjudged the length and had to go back and cut more than I wanted, but the above does reflect how I conceptualized the book and prioritized entries in the index.)

Building in time for reflection is important when writing an index. Indexing requires so many decisions. It can be easy to get lost in all of the details. Being able to step back and regain perspective is a valuable skill, and mind maps and summaries are valuable tools for doing so. Gaining clarity about what the book is about and how the final index should look will help you index more effectively and efficiently.

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.

I’ve been learning indexing in my free time (and admittedly have plenty of it these days!) and would love some book recommendations to practice on — ideally titles that already have professional indexes so I can compare my work. I’ve heard that even between two skilled indexers, their results can differ by about 20–30%, which makes sense since indexing is as much an art as it is a technical craft. Do you have any suggestions for how I can tell whether my index is on the right track? When comparing mine to the published version, what kinds of differences are worth noticing or learning from?

Thank you, Clara. That is a great question. I think there is a lot here to unpack.

You are right that each indexer is unique and will not create the exact same index as someone else. This can make comparisons between indexes tricky because differences between indexes are not necessarily wrong.

I am not going to recommend specific titles to practice on. I don’t know what books are available to you, or what your background and interests are. But I do have a few ideas for how to practice effectively.

Even though each indexer will write a different index, all good indexes should still be grounded in indexing best practices. So to start, I recommend becoming familiar with best practices, both as a lens for analyzing other indexes and as a guide when writing your own.

The American Society for Indexing (ASI) has a handy PDF of best practices available here (I’ve had some trouble with the link, so if it doesn’t work, look for the best practices PDF in the sidebar). For a more concise listing, I recommend looking at the criteria for both the ASI Indexing Awards and the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation (ISC/SCI)’s Ewart-Daveluy Award. These are what the judges are looking for when assessing nominations, and are also good guides for what to incorporate in your own indexes.

Once familiar with the qualities of an excellent index, start dissecting published indexes. You can start with the award winners. How do these indexes reflect best practices? What is similar across all of these indexes? What is different? Get a feel for how these indexes work and what you may want to borrow. ISC/SCI makes available all winning indexes, here. For some reason, ASI only makes available some (and primarily older) award-winning indexes, which you can find here.

In addition to prize-winning indexes, examine any index that you can find on your bookshelf, including terrible indexes. How do they exhibit best practices, or not? If an index seems terribly written, can you pinpoint why? How could those indexes be improved? I think understanding what doesn’t work can be just as valuable as understanding what does work. Something can be learned from any index, whether well-written or not. 

Now that you have a better feel for indexing best practices and how they are used—or not used—try incorporating best practices into your own indexes. 

One way is to deliberately practice. Identify one or two best practices to work on and be intentional about improving those aspects as you draft and edit your index. As you become more comfortable with those aspects, move on to incorporating another best practice.

You can also borrow techniques that you find in other indexes. I did this when I indexed Canada’s Army: Waging War and Keeping the Peace, Third Edition, by J.L. Granatstein. The book contains a lot of detail about dozens of military units across multiple wars. I struggled to figure out an effective way to organize all of that information into a structure that was comprehensive yet still easy to search. I browsed at least a half-dozen military histories before I found an index that I liked and which I thought I could adapt. If you find a particular approach that you like, by all means try using it yourself. Remember, though, that not all techniques work in all contexts. You may need to adapt techniques to fit the contents of the book or try a different technique altogether. Part of being a good indexer is having a few strategies on hand to pick and choose from.

You can also practice different approaches within the same index. You don’t need to rewrite the index multiple times. Rather, conduct a thought experiment. What is another way to structure the index? How would you trim the index by a quarter, if space was a limiting factor? By half? How could you handle cross-references differently? How would these decisions affect the index, for better or worse?

One final word of advice: When practicing, practice on easier books, whatever easier means for you. Indexing techniques are the same whether the book is difficult or easy, so I think better to practice on something easier so that you can be more focused on indexing decisions rather than getting bogged down trying to understand the book. As you become more familiar with indexing, it will become easier to apply those same skills to more difficult books. This was my experience, as I wrote my first several indexes while working in-house for a trade publisher. By the time I indexed my first scholarly book, it was less intimidating and felt like a natural progression because I had experience to build upon. In contract, I remember one new indexer I mentored who floundered after choosing a book to practice on that even experienced indexers would have struggled with. That indexer did have a background in that subject, but even so, it proved too challenging when combined with practicing indexing skills. So do yourself a favor and choose an easier book. Harder books can wait.

It is important to learn how to analyze your own indexes and to know how your indexes compare. To do that, it is important to understand and recognize best practices, both in your own indexes and in indexes written by others. So spend some time reviewing best practices and using them as a lens to analyze. Learn to identify specific strategies and techniques, and then apply those lessons to your own indexes. If you can do that, you are well on your way to writing excellent indexes yourself.