A Correct Page Number Can Still Support the Wrong Heading

You check an index entry against the book. The page number is correct, the subject is present, and the passage contains useful information. Yet the entry still sends readers to the wrong thing. How?

The page supports the subject, but not the relationship promised by the heading. “Governors—administrative duties” and “Governors—conflicts with the council” ask different questions. Finding a governor on the page cannot answer both.

An index locator must support the complete main heading and subheading read together. The words that connect them matter as much as the subject names.

Read the entry as a sentence

An indented subheading borrows meaning from its parent. Read “Governors—conflicts with the council, 64” as: page 64 gives useful information about governors’ conflicts with the council. That sentence exposes what a check for “governors” alone would miss.

The Society of Indexers’ guidance for reviewing an index asks reviewers to check that main-heading/subheading relationships are clear and logical, and to spot-check whether the listed topic is discussed at the indicated location. Reading the complete entry as a sentence puts those checks together.

Compression is necessary: index entries cannot repeat whole paragraphs. But compression should preserve who did what, what was compared, and how certain the conclusion is. A heading may paraphrase the source; it should not add a claim the source cannot sustain.

1. A useful fact inside a comparative list

On page 28: “Between the two censuses, Merrow’s population rose from 12,000 to 18,000, while Eastmere’s remained near 9,000.”

• Before: Merrow → population growth caused by factories, 28
• After: Merrow → population growth between censuses, 28

The list gives a concrete fact about Merrow. Its compressed form does not make it a passing mention. For a book about urban development, readers may reasonably want this population comparison.

The problem is the proposed cause. This passage says nothing about factories. Keep the useful locator under a heading that describes the change, rather than rejecting the fact because it appears in a list or accepting an unsupported explanation because the city is present.

2. An attributed observation with the relationship reversed

On page 41: “Mira Bell observed that seasonal work drew families toward the coast; later researchers disputed her explanation.”

• Before: Bell, Mira → criticisms of later researchers, 41
• After: Bell, Mira → coastal migration, observations on, 41

The passage supplies a retrievable observation attributable to Bell. It need not be biographical to give useful subject-index access under her name. But the original entry reverses the relationship: later researchers criticize Bell’s explanation, not the other way around.

The revised entry identifies her observation without implying that the book endorses it. Depending on the surrounding discussion and intended readership, “Bell, Mira → explanation of coastal migration, criticism of” might provide another useful route. Each proposed route needs its own support. A bare citation such as “Bell (1908)” would not supply the same information.

3. A compound heading supported only halfway

On page 64: “Each district governor supervised tax collection, appointed local clerks, and reported annually to the central administration.”

• Before: Governors → administrative duties and conflicts with the council, 64
• After: Governors → administrative duties, 64

This is useful treatment of the governors’ duties. It does not describe a council or a conflict. The word “and” quietly doubles the promise, while the evidence fulfills only one part.

If the book treats conflicts elsewhere, create a separate subheading with the verified locators for that discussion. Do not copy page 64 into it. Splitting an entry helps only when the resulting locator lists are checked separately; duplicating the original list can preserve the error in two places.

Certainty needs the same care. A substantial discussion of possible population decline does not support “Population decline → established conclusion.” Preserve the qualification in the heading when it distinguishes the argument. More discussion cannot turn “possible” into “established.”

Check usefulness and accuracy separately

The companion article Should a Book Index Include Every Mention? explains why every locator must offer retrieval value. Add a second question: does this complete entry describe that value accurately? A rich discussion can sit under a misleading heading; a perfectly accurate heading can lead to an unhelpful passing mention. Either problem needs repair.

• ✓ Read the main heading and every subheading together. What does the complete entry promise?
• ✓ Find the supporting passage on the cited page. What useful information does it actually provide?
• ✓ Check every component, especially “and,” causal wording, attribution, comparison, chronology and certainty.
• ✓ Keep the useful locator, narrow or split the heading, move the locator, or remove it—according to the evidence.
• ✓ After changing a heading, recheck its other locators. A repair that fits one page may stop fitting another.

The strongest correction preserves useful access while removing the unsupported promise. A correct page number tells readers where to go. An accurate heading tells them what they will find.