Hello,

Today’s reflection is going to get nerdy. I am also sorry to be running a day late. This one took a while to write.

I recently finished indexing an Oxford handbook, which was the first Oxford handbook I’ve ever indexed. Definitely a challenge, particularly in regards to length—forty-five chapters, or about the equivalent of three or four regular-length edited collections. The time needed to draft and edit an index seems to grow exponentially the longer and more complicated the book.

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:

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:

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,

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,

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.

Yours in indexing,

Stephen