Freelance Editorial Association News, Summer/Fall 1995 Volume 11, Number 2
Marilyn Rowland
Indexers, like other freelancers, often work alone. Although they have unlimited access to indexes prepared by others via the bookstore or public library, they rarely have the opportunity to meet with other indexers to talk about indexing, indexing techniques, or a project they may be struggling with. This can be frustrating for both beginning and advanced indexers, especially those who receive little feedback from clients about the quality of their work.
One way of bringing indexers together is to invite them to participate in a shared indexing exercise, such as the one sponsored last October by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Society of Indexers (ASI). We asked indexers to share their indexing questions and their expertise by indexing the same material, and then meeting to discuss the results. The Chapter felt the community indexing exercise would be a good way for members to get to know each other better and to encourage involvement in our organization.
Though our exercise was designed for indexers, other freelancers (especially copyeditors and proofreaders) may find that they can adapt some of our techniques to design similar shared exercises in copyediting, proofreading, design, or writing.
The Process
We asked all interested indexers and indexer-wannabes to index the same material, and then we compared the resulting variety of approaches and results. The point was not to determine who did the “best” job, but to establish a starting point for discussing indexing guidelines, styles, and ways to improve our work.
The exercise was a more challenging task than we had anticipated. There were three basic issues: (1) deciding what material we should index; (2) determining how it would be distributed to everyone who wanted to participate; and (3) providing an effective way of evaluating the indexes, providing helpful advice for participants, and involving people in discussion without singling anyone out for public criticism.
To deal with the second problem first, we decided to use published material that was available at local public libraries. We wanted material without an existing index (so that participants wouldn’t be tempted to use it as a model). We needed a general topic that would appeal to everyone; we felt a specialized topic might give some people an advantage, while intimidating others. We also wanted the exercise to take no more than two hours to complete.
A magazine article seemed to fit our needs, and we decided to use a Smithsonian magazine article about coral reef fishes. The article was a clearly written, straightforward description of daily activity cycles of fish in the coral reef. It had relatively few concepts to index, but did require indexers to make decisions about how to index many species of fish and the types of fish activities, and how to treat illustrations.
The society’s mailing list numbers 200 names, so making copies of the article for everyone was out of the question. For those without convenient access to a library, we offered to send a copy of the article for a $3 fee to cover copying and mailing. (Only one participant took us up on this offer.)
Evaluation Methods
To provide a structured way to evaluate the indexes, we asked experienced indexers to serve as reviewers. We asked that those taking part in the exercise mail their completed indexes to each of the reviewers one week before the event.
Some of the reviewers were concerned that the exercise would generate a flood of responses, which they wouldn’t have time to evaluate. Since the reviewers were freely donating their time, we decided not to establish any formal requirements for reviewing the indexes, but simply to have the evaluators respond to them as they saw fit (individually or collectively, formally or informally).
In addition to the reviewer responses, we created a statistical analysis of the indexes based on a method developed by Lori Lathrop, current president of ASI’s Colorado chapter and an indexing instructor. We compared indexes by number of entries, number of subentries, number of locators, number of entries/page; whether the indexer had chosen to use initial capital letters or lower case, single- or double-spacing, and whether and how page references for illustrations and tables had been identified.
The Response
Sixteen people from three states attended the index review meeting in October 1994; eight sent indexes to us prior to the meeting and two others brought their indexes with them. It was a smaller turnout than we anticipated, but we found we had an abundance of diversity in both the submitted indexes and in the reviewer responses to the indexes.
We displayed the indexes publicly before the meeting. Also available were copies of ASI’s publication Index Evaluation Checklist, which includes an overview of how to judge index quality. I had prepared a statistical analysis of the eight indexes submitted before the meeting. The results are shown in the table (see sidebar). Among the submissions, we found a tremendous variation in the size of the indexes, the level and density of indexing, and in assumptions made by the indexers about the audience for the index and the ultimate use of the index, such as being a stand-alone article and index, a chapter of a book on coral reefs, or part of a year’s index to the Smithsonian.
**Indicates whether initial caps were used or whether entries were in lower case.
***Indicates single or double spacing.
We began by asking the reviewers individually to comment briefly on the indexes. It was interesting to see that there was as much variety in the approaches of our reviewers as there was in the indexes themselves. This in part was due to the varying professional backgrounds of the indexers and reviewers. Specific indexing styles (scientific, medical, and computer/technical) don’t always translate well to other types of indexing. Many of the differences were due to expressed or implied assumptions about the intended purpose of the index. All the reviewers spoke in general terms about the indexes, seemingly reluctant to criticize any specific index. One reviewer reviewed each of the indexes in detail and returned the marked-up copies to the appreciative participants after the session.
Most participants over-indexed, finding 10, 15, or 27 entries per page in a non-scientific article intended for the general public (an article in which 3 to 5 entries per page would have been appropriate). This was in part because there were so many fish species mentioned, and people felt the need to index them all (or, for some, none at all). People were very aware that this was not a real indexing project, but a public exercise, and for that reason they seemed to want to include every item indexable or to include entries that would illustrate specific rules of indexing. Many people spent two hours or more indexing the 9-page article. They acknowledged that if this had been a real assignment they would have indexed much faster, much more concisely, and consulted with the client about the depth of indexing desired.
Despite the problems with our approach, people were enthusiastic about the exercise and appreciated the opportunity to get some feedback on their indexes, even if it was negative. If anything, they wanted more specific comments about their own indexes so that they could improve the quality of their work. We consider the event a success and hope to repeat it in the future. We encourage other groups of freelancers—proofreaders, copyeditors, designers, writers, and others—to experiment and to share their experiences with us. (See suggestions below.)
Suggestions for Groups Considering a Similar Exercise in Indexing or Other Editorial Functions
Choose a subject matter that members are familiar with or that they would like to learn more about. Based on our experience, we probably should have selected a chapter in a computer manual or an introductory medical book because these are the most common subject matters indexed. It is more difficult to find this material than to use an article from a magazine, but it might be worthwhile to photocopy and distribute pages from one indexer’s “real” projects (charging a small fee for participation). Ten pages is a reasonable length for this project. Similarly, real pages from a copyediting or proofreading assignment could be used.
It is possible to do a shared exercise without the use of reviewers, instead relying on participants to comment on each other’s work, but reviewers do help to focus discussion. Choose reviewers who have experience in the type of material you select for the exercise, or, alternately, choose the material based on the experience of the people you select as reviewers. Allow reviewers a free hand in approaching the reviews, but provide some basic guidelines, and encourage reviewers to provide specific criticism of specific work. Freelancers participate in this sort of an exercise to learn, and they are eager for constructive criticism. It may be appropriate to pay reviewers an honorarium.
Instructions Be specific in your instructions, just as if this were a real assignment. For an indexing assignment, specify whether the end product should be considered a stand-alone index or part of a larger index. Provide instructions for style and format as well.
One to two months’ notice should be sufficient time to allow participants to complete the assignment and to send it in for review. The longer lead time may be necessary if you choose to mail the material to be indexed in response to requests.
For an indexing exercise, use ASI’s Index Evaluation Checklist as a starting point, but take the time to adapt it to your specific project. Require that participants submit their indexes at least a week before the meeting so that you can develop a statistical analysis to quantify variation in the indexes. If there are relatively few indexes, it could be useful to go over each index individually. For an editing or proofreading exercise, use a relevant style guide as the basis for your analysis, but, again, prepare a method of analyzing the submissions to clearly determine the features you will be looking for in the exercise.
[ back to top ]