by 
Cross references are the instructions in an index that point a user from one place to another, usually taking the form of See or See also. They’re awfully convenient for indexers, providing a way to collect information outside the structure of the index. That is, they function like hyperlinks, drawing connections between one topic and another, when the two (or more) topics won’t appear side-by-side in an alphabetical sort. Or, when space constraints prevent a full posting of information in more than one spot.
In Part I, I talk about common errors in See references. See also references present their own problems. Usability studies show they are misunderstood or even ignored by index users, but when they are understood, they are valuable. Users can find information faster, as they don’t need to guess at synonyms. The cross reference provides the preferred vocabulary.
Why are See also references confusing? Probably in part because, unlike See references, there are locators present. The user is given some results, and therefore may not understand why they must look somewhere else for more information.
Why be directed elsewhere when there is already information at the first point of entry? Why wouldn’t those page numbers be in the first instance? Well, for several reasons.
A See also cross reference points the user to “more and different information,” according to Wellisch. It indicates relationships among terms, not exact synonymity.
Often this takes the form of going from a narrower term to a broader one, or specific to general, and back again.
Back again is important. Reciprocity ensures users don’t miss information—if the reference only appears at one term (for example, clams, See also bivalves; if a user starts at bivalves, will they find the information under clams if it’s not already covered by other subheadings?). Almost every cross reference needs to be reciprocal, unless doing so would make the index ridiculous.
When users are confused, it’s also possible the entry the reference points to may not have an easily visible connection to those unfamiliar with the general subject of the book.
The other main type of See also cross reference is an associative cross reference. For those thesaurus-minded folks, it’s the RT (related term) in your hierarchy. Clams, See also mussels. Whole and parts, fields of study to their objects, activities and objects; all these are associations.
associations among terms such as whole to parts, or related activities
alternative medicine
clinics
Traditional Chinese Medicine
See also integrative oncology
and occasionally between names, when historical events dictate the specificity
Russia
abolition of serfdom
Revolution of 1918
See also Soviet Union
The biggest mistake I see with cross references is using a See also when a See reference is needed. See also should also not split information between synonyms, unless necessary as in the Russia/Soviet Union example (where we can assume there are subheadings for the Cuban Missile Crisis and glasnost under Soviet Union). Don’t do the following:
aubergines
cooking, 42–43
pests, 27–28
See also eggplant
eggplant
growing, 24–26
recipes, 39–41
See also aubergines
Likewise, part of the definition of a See also reference is different information. The indexing maxim, “Save the time of the user,” has a more blunt version, “Don’t waste the user’s time.” Double-posted entries—entries with the same subheadings and locators, but under synonymous main entries—should not cross reference each other (but if there’s a cross reference to more and different information, by all means make sure both double-posted entries have that same cross reference).
So how does an indexer create cross references in a way that might be easier for users to understand? One, by using them only when necessary. Perhaps you have room to include the specific headings as subs under the general main:
dogs
breeding
care of
dalmatians
golden retrievers
kennels
spaniels
Then, there’s no need for the user to come up with specific dog breeds in answer to the generic cross reference (See also specific breeds), or for a laundry list (See also dalmatians; golden retrievers; spaniels). This would be an instance where the cross reference would not be reciprocal, so there’d only be references from the specific breeds. Generic cross references should be used sparingly.
Two, make sure each associative reference is both logical and necessary. Is there a clear connection? Will readers need or want to continue from one subject to the other; relevance is key. Technically, all the headings in an index are associated, since they have to do with the metatopic of the book. It’s absurd to link them all with a cross reference, and most indexers (I hope!) wouldn’t do this. But sometimes the links pointed out by cross references are nearly as tenuous, and while interesting, are as useful to a user as internet rabbit holes.
Three, make sure the references are correct! There should be a heading in the index, and it should match the cross reference. Simply doing a “find all: See” search while editing can cut down on mistakes with cross references. One common problem during the indexing process is putting in synonyms—often because the author uses more than one term interchangeably in the text—as you think of them or come across them. After all, you don’t want to forget to include that term in the index. One way around this is to choose the preferred term for the indexing process and then use See cross references from all synonyms as you think of them. During the edit, these can be easily changed about or deleted—or even double posted (all the same information is under two different headings, but there is no cross reference)—with the “find all” command to make sure they’re all correct.
Cross references are a great tool for indexers and users. Doing a better job of using cross references in the indexing process could go a long way toward helping users understand how to they work.
Leave a Reply