Re: Indexing- Best Practices

[Peter Neilson <neilson -at- alltel -dot- net>]

Nilesh,
A good cookbook, such as the classic Rombauer and Becker "Joy of Cooking,"
will provide an example of an excellent index.  Below I list some hints
and traps.

- Be wary of "See" entries.  "See also" is ok, in moderation.  It's very
 frustrating to the reader to be sent to another spot in the index when
 the original entry could have simply given the page.  (Rombauer and
 Becker say, "Also see" instead of "See also.")

- Try to anticipate how the reader will use the document.  Some people will
 look up chicken soup under "chicken" and others under "soup," so both
 entries are needed.  Sometimes the reader will try to find an alternate
 term that isn't ever mentioned in the text, and this is a valid situation
 for a "See" entry.  Rombauer and Becker: "Dried beef, see Chipped Beef."

- Use only two levels in the index, even if your software allows more.  There
 is never any excuse for a third level.  Anyone who disagrees with me is
 invited to read Rombauer and Becker (my edition is 1975) and see how they
 handle the problem.  Here, from the EGGS entry:
   EGGS AND EGG DISHES
     ...
     whites, to fold, 545, 665, 665
     whites, stiff but not dry, 545
     whites, uncooked, about, 743
     yolk, to add to hot liquid, 543
     yolks as sauce thickener, 339

- Avoid making an entry for a term used in passing or in the negative.  For
 example, a paragraph with the phrase, "... beets, unlike artichokes, ..."
 requires an entry for beets, but probably not for artichokes.

- Watch out for homographs--two words that look identical but are used in
 totally unrelated senses and often have different pronunciations.  For
 example, the index entry for Lead (the chemical element--and no, I don't
 use it in cooking) should never point to the portion of the text that quotes
 the hymn, "Lead, Kindly Light."  An "automatic" indexing tool could easily
 give you this kind of error.

- Try to avoid triteness.  Here's an example based on something I actually
 saw:
   USING
     Compiler, 75
     Editor Program, 34
     Linker, 92
 This is a silly entry.  Nobody will look up "Using."  Its inclusion makes
 the indexer (and the author) look stupid.  If you cannot avoid silliness,
 put in these three entries, devised decades ago by a wise-guy friend:
   Circular Argument, see Petitio Principii
   ...
   Petitio Principii, see Proof by Assumption
   ...
   Proof by Assumption, see Circular Argument

Best of luck on creating a good index.  It's not hard, but it does require
careful thought.


On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:14:44 +0530, Nilesh Parmar <nilesh -at- pramati -dot- com> wrote: