After reviewing the index, you should make a list of changes or deletions to the index that you would make. You should list queries or questionable entries. You should feel free to notice spelling errors, incorrectly formatted page references, and other items. Here is a list of things to look for when editing someone else's index. This list comes from Fred Brown's web site, and are elaborated on in detail there.

In order to promote some degree of consistency in comments, I would encourage you to stick to these topic areas when making your queries/responses.

If done carefully and correctly, your comments might generate a note such as this:

It is with a great deal of gratitude and humility that I write this report both to thank my reviewers and to let others in the peer group know what a wonderful job they did for me.  Although my finished index was far from the standard to which I aspire, it is 200% better because of the helpful advice and corrections of those who volunteered to review my index. I sent it off on Friday, May 26, to the editor in Florida.

I am not sure how to describe all the things the reviewers found. All pointed out (1) my need to compress my subheadings (in some cases, delete all of them), (2) how to better word my subheadings (and some main headings) more concisely with the keyword up front. (They often asked, "Would anyone look under this word?") (3) combinations that I had overlooked (Chaffey College and Chaffey Community College, for example), (4) vague headings and subs that needed to be somewhere else, (5) variation in tense, (6) inconsistent use of italics, (7) inconsistent locators, (8) headings that were too specific, and (9) "onsies" (single-page-number items that could be combined with other entries to reduce the size).

All the reviewers were very kind but gave me some meaningful comments. One said that if she had to read an index this difficult, she wouldn't want to read the book. Another said my index was more of a timeline than an index. Another suggested I proofread more carefully. Still another said that so many subentries were too much work for the reader. All agreed it was much too lengthy and needed to be cut. I concur with all these statements.

• I learned about being too specific in my subs (e.g., where I had "Marxist leanings," one suggested "politics of").
• One suggested a headnote to explain my use of (t) for tables. (I might have forgotten this.)
• One suggested I break down my longest list of subs into three sections. (This helped quite a bit.)
• Several suggested I avoid the use of adjectives (e.g., birthrate, not birthrate, high Latino)
• One suggested cross-references from subentries if allowed.
• Another suggested I use my find-all (grouping) capability for gathering
  information together.
• One suggested putting state names in parentheses, using abbreviations (e.g., Calif.)
• "Notetaking" was another term that applied to my many lengthy, vague entries.

I know each reviewer spent hours of valuable time to help me. I felt each one was taking me gently by the hand and trying to lead me out of this jungle I had created. I carefully went through all suggestions and incorporated everything I could. One of you cautioned me against the tendency to do a great deal of last minute fixing. As I review this list, however, I wish I had done more. I'll definitely do better next time!

Thank you so much. I am deeply in your debt.

As some of you may have noticed, this exercise is very similar to the core/focus of IndexPeers (a mailing list created for professional, working indexers to have their indexes proofread and commented upon before submission). I am indebted to Martha Osgood for her brilliance in coming up with the notion (or at least her determination in making it available and practical for indexers to use). I am hoping that a collegial and congenial discussion of the strengths and weakness of their indexes would be useful for those who are often learning in some degree of isolation. Let us strive for erring on the side of kindness and tact, but know that indexers who have posted their indexes here are hoping for truthful and honest feedback.

To participate, please select an index from the following list, which will bring you to the PDF version of that index. You can then print it out or read it on screen. Your comments should be directed to the entire list if at all possible (although private communications are allowed of course, many readers will benefit from shared comments).

List of Indexes Available for Comment

Posted 5/11/2004: Index to Rural Life Cooks, Traditional Recipes of Louisiana (Susan Barnes, Indexer)

(2002, LSU Rural Life Museum, 248 indexable pp.) RTF version

Posted 8/8/2001: Index to When Good Dogs Do Bad Things (Janyne Ste Marie, Indexer) PDF version, RTF version

Posted 5/17/2001: Index to Infant Massage: A Handbook for Loving Parents PDF version, RTF version

Posted 10/20/2000: Index to Remembering the Lower East Side (Indexer B) PDF version, RTF version

Posted 10/20/2000: Index to Remembering the Lower East Side (Indexer A) PDF version, RTF version

Posted 9/7/2000: Notes to Phyllis Linn's index to Self-Esteem

Posted 9/7/2000: Index to Self-Esteem (Phyllis Lynn (Indexpress), Indexer) PDF version, RTF version

Posted 9/7/2000: Index to Self-Esteem (Jean Middleton, Indexer) Version 2 (edited, with changes) PDF version, RTF version

Posted 9/7/2000: Index to Self-Esteem (Jean Middleton, Indexer) Version 1 PDF version, RTF version

Posted 8/23/2000: Index to "The Influence of John Calvin in the Early Elizabethan Reformation:  The Case of William Whittingham."  PDF version, RTF version

Posted 8/4/2000: Index to The Absolute Best Play Days by Pamela J. Waterman. PDF version, RTF version

| IndexStudents Home Page | Term Selection Exercises | Frequently Asked Questions | Index Evaluation Exercise | Topic of the Week