Disappointed
On logos.uservoice.com, there was a request for a privacy feature. Bob closed this request, saying it was fulfilled by simply turning off updates, and requesting a DVD update periodically. I'm personally disappointed that requests for privacy functionality are still being treated with such a cavalier attitude. I understand that we live in a world that doesn't value privacy any longer, but that doesn't make this the right answer.
It's unprofessional, and it makes me rethink spending time teaching my Seminary professors how to use Logos, and convincing others to buy it.
Russ
Comments
-
I'm disappointed in the handling of this as well. It seems a fair number of people voted for that feature and ignored. I'm not sure what to make out of it other than it sounds a lot like my opinion doesn't really matter.
It seems to me if you have enough people voting for it that it might be a reason to rethink your position and it looks like it was moving upwards so either Logos doesn't really understand the concern or doesn't care to.
0 -
Questions for Bob:
What, specifically, is the objection to such a feature? I don't buy, "it increases support costs." All features can be said to increase support costs, why is this specific feature, which had well over 100 votes, being treated differently? Beyond this, if you're more concerned about your support costs than my privacy, then just say so up front, and I'll find some other software to use.
Or is that you're planning on (or already are) mining this information for some specific reason? Are you using some sort of analytics to support marketing, or plan to, across people's notes files and prayer journals?
I can't imagine this would be hard to code--if you're doing a directory sync, it's just a matter of moving those files into a directory that doesn't sync--if you're doing file by file synch, it's just an if statement with an array to match, and some work on the UI front end. So I really don't understand the wholesale resistance to doing the right thing here.
Russ
0 -
Russ White said:
and requesting a DVD update periodically
I think the concept DVD update service is brilliant, but here's where things stand as of today:
1. 4.0a is still the version you get if you buy the DVD media and 4.0c has just been released. 4.0a was released seven months ago and there have been many updates which have fixed bugs and many core features added.
2. There are a number of resources which are not included in the base disk which are download only.
Aside from security, the issues around downloading many gigabytes of information is not possible in a number of situations. I called Logos two months ago and asked about an updated DVD and I was told to check back in a month... checking back, there's still nothing.
I love L4, but for those who can't or shouldn't (for security reasons) download data, it's a real problem for which there has not been a good answer to. All I can figure is that there must not be a market for people in this category.
Donovan
0 -
I think Logos has dealt very fairly and graciously with its users. Perhaps they may not have implemented exactly what we want or how we want it, but we cannot deny that they are an open and responsive company. These complaints did not exist with Libronix because users didn't have as high expectations that they do with Logos 4. But since they've listened, now we act as if they have to do everything we ask, and defend why they choose not to.
The item was number 20 on the list, and Bob believes that it has been suitably addressed. In response, we accuse him of unprofessionalism and a cavalier attitude, and threaten not to recommend Logos to others? I'm grateful that the staff at Logos are patient and have thick-skins. They regularly receive complaints and criticism on their own forum, but continue to work faithfully to produce the product that they believe is best.
0 -
Russ White said:
I'm personally disappointed that requests for privacy functionality are still being treated with such a cavalier attitude. I understand that we live in a world that doesn't value privacy any longer, but that doesn't make this the right answer.
It's unprofessional,
I understand your disappointment but would like you to reconsider four things:
1) Your assumption that Logos acted in a cavalier attitude. Logos may have done a thorough analysis of the benefits, costs and tradeoffs before making their decision. It is not fair to assume that they did not.
2) If one looks at the history of ideas in the world, valuing privacy is a relatively new and growing concern.
3) If I were to state what I see as the relevant declining value in the world, I would say personal responsibility. It seems to me that the Logos decision correctly places the onus on me to not enter sensitive data into the prayer list - the one place I would be apt to enter sensitive information.
4) Why is the decision unprofessional? In your post the only grounds you give for this evaluation is that Logos made a decision you don't agree with.
I understand why Bob said turning off the internet connection solved the problem. This is not my first choice for a solution - I would have preferred an option to omit prayer lists from the synchronization process. I understand why you are disappointed. I don't understand slandering individuals and a company because you disagree with a decision.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Russ White said:
What, specifically, is the objection to such a feature?
Just a guess, not insider knowledge (of which I have none). The implementation of access to Logos across multiple devices requires synchronization. This process would become unmanageable if Logos requested that all users maintain their own synchronization process.
Russ White said:Or is that you're planning on (or already are) mining this information for some specific reason?
Logos was already mining data in L3 - where do you think they got their usage figures to prioritize features in L4? Data mining is the ultimate in not looking at the detail. As long as Logos uses the data solely for data mining your privacy is ensured. Your only fear should be a court of law demanding the information - a reasonable concern with your library card as well.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
1. Calling a decision unprofessional is not slander. It's interesting how accustomed we've become to misusing language, to the point that we misuse it on a regular basis, and how fast we are to take offense, and proclaim victimhood. I specifically think that closing a feature request by saying you can simply not use the software as intended is unprofessional--I know where I work, it would be considered unprofessional. Closing it because there's no interest is one issue, closing it because you can use the software in a way not intended is another.
2. The argument from personal responsibility makes no sense. The feature request is about giving people the tools they need to exercise personal responsibility. In fact, this argument presumes it's personally irresponsible to use this specific feature of the software--and then you say it's wrong not to recommend the software. It seems to me that if it's irresponsible to use some of some specific feature of a piece of software, the irresponsible course is to recommend the use of the software itself. Your argument turns back against itself, and self-refutes.
I'm disappointed that on this forum, and within Logos, user privacy is treated with such little relevance. If privacy is a growing concern, a company like Logos should be on the cutting edge of building privacy in, instead of at the trailing edge.
Russ
0 -
[quote]Just a guess, not insider knowledge (of which I have none). The
implementation of access to Logos across multiple devices requires
synchronization. This process would become unmanageable if Logos
requested that all users maintain their own synchronization process.So Logos should force me to synchronize all my notes whether or not I want that feature in all cases? That's a rather thin argument, IMHO. It's like Facebook saying, "well you can't keep anything private, or we can't give you the feature of tagging you in pictures other people upload."
Russ
0 -
It seems to me that Bob could have posted you can already do this via "turn off Internet access" as opposed to commenting on it and marking it complete.
The fact that he marked it complete suggests to me he isn't listening to it or has already decided he doesn't care to do anything about it regardless of votes.
This sounds a lot to me like there isn't any listening going on. I don't have to agree with his decision, but I also don't think I'm dismissing his view either. Marking it complete appears to be dismissing the view as already complete and no further discussion is needed.
It seems to me that the uservoice was a way for people to vote on things important to them....is that still true? If so, why was it marked complete?
Heck, he could have just commented and said that's probably as far as Logos is going with it at this point? What if he didn't close it and it 1000 votes? Would he reconsider then? Closing it means either its not open for discussion or they're concerned it'll keep going up and they won't listen at that point.
ie, In the forum thread everyone kept insisting it isn't a problem and no one wants this feature. Well, why not let it go on then? As mentioned it was at 100+ points and still moving upwards...someone cares.
If the logic is well it still isn't representative of customer views, then get rid of uservoice voting.
0 -
We all balance privacy issues when we use our computers. Every email I send or website I visit, they all contain the possibility of loss of privacy. Programs I use constantly phoning home to check for updates, even Google mines our searches for information. I am comfortable with the risk i take with Logos and synchronization
Considering the great flexibility Logos 4 gives us to be able to use our data on multiple platforms, In light of the benefits I feel the privacy issue to be at the rock bottom of my wish list for Logos to implement.
What exactly are we thinking Will happen with our data? After all who wants to try and find my prayer list from off of a Logos server by hacking in? I was more concerned about credit card info floating around for prepubs that take years to make in some cases. Bob has already addressed the credit card issue, and I'm fine with it.
0 -
All of this talk of privacy in a public forum with your name attached to it just doesn't make sense to me. Without access to logo's files, I know that you use L4, you use notes or prayer lists, or ... I know even more info about you in that many of you list websites on your tag lines, and I also know even more by clicking on your name. Knowing this much, I could probably track down your hometown, your address, and probably your phone number (all of which I am sure you can do to me too). Given all of that how can you really be concerned about privacy? Seems to me like an opportunity to complain.
Those who really have privacy concerns have turned off the updates, turned off the internet, and are not members of this forum.
0 -
Personally, I do not care about issues of privacy (with the current configuration) and I have no vested interest in seeing the feature implemented
That being said, I can understand why Russ and others were disappointed with the way the request for privacy features was handled (what I think of the issue of privacy is actually irrelevant to the merit of the complaints).
I would like to remind us that Logos is a business that exists to make a profit (if it was not the case it would be a non-profit organization and even then many of the observations below would still apply). As such, paying customers can legitimately expect from Logos, the same thing they expect from other software companies and businesses in general (and even more because Logos claims to operate according to Christian principles). Some comments here give the impression that users are getting the product for free and the only thing they should express is gratitude (just replace Logos with Microsoft and Apple and see if you still recommend the same course of action). Yes, we should be thankful for the products offered by Logos, but this is business relationship and the gratitude goes both ways and does not (and should not) exclude constructive criticism (the very fuel of improvement)
Logos.uservoice.com was designed to get user input and use that input to prioritize improvements and fixes. A legitimate expectation is that items that have garnered a substantial number of votes will be given proper attention (the point of having Logos.uservoice.com in the first place).
Customers that have invested thousand of dollars of their hard earned money should not be faulted for expressing the fact that their expectations were not met. I personally think “fixing” the privacy issue by penalizing the user and taking away key functions of the program is not a solution at all and does not warrant the label “completed” when it comes to the request. Such a solution would be unacceptable in most professional environments and can legitimately be considered substandard (just imagine Microsoft telling you that if you do not want viruses in your PC, the solution is to disconnect it from the internet, it would be a “solution” indeed but far from customer expectations).
As some have mentioned, allowing users to select what is synchronized should be feasible technologically (if strangely it was not possible, explaining that to the user would have been much better than marking the request as “completed”).
The hard reality of the free market is that things get done when users complain and let company understand what they have to lose by not listening (I can think of a few radical changes that Logos made after customers strongly voiced their opinions).
While many here think they are helping the customer and or Logos, faulting those who voice their disappointment does not help the situation and surely does not help Logos that might lose their business (lecturing or patronizing a customer is not known to resolve customer complaints). If you are satisfied with everything Logos does and how they handle all situations, that is great (you are the ideal customer and Logos should thank you for that), however you should allow others to think differently and give them the freedom to express themselves without being attacked and labeled (they are the people that Logos needs to woe and please in order to keep their business)
This is not to say that we customers always make legitimate demands or that we are always reasonable, of course not. It does not also mean that Logos is doing everything wrong. Au contraire, Logos is doing most things right and this is why I have invested so much in this company. But with great investment come great expectations and a desire to hold the company to higher standards.
Alain
0 -
Michael Birney said:
All of this talk of privacy in a public forum with your name attached to it just doesn't make sense to me. Without access to logo's files, I know that you use L4, you use notes or prayer lists, or ... I know even more info about you in that many of you list websites on your tag lines, and I also know even more by clicking on your name. Knowing this much, I could probably track down your hometown, your address, and probably your phone number (all of which I am sure you can do to me too). Given all of that how can you really be concerned about privacy? Seems to me like an opportunity to complain.
Those who really have privacy concerns have turned off the updates, turned off the internet, and are not members of this forum.
"All I want is for the extension cord manufacturer to build the cord so the cord won't pull out of the plug."
"If you don't want electrical fires, then shut the electricity off in your house."It's always best to apply the argument your making in the case at hand to some completely related case to see if it makes sense before posting it in public. Again, I don't find it so horrible to ask that if a set of users open, and vote for, a specific feature, that Logos leave it open and address it if it gets to the top of the heap over time, rather than simply closing it because you can simply not use the software as its intended to be used and "solve" the problem.
Russ
0 -
BobbyTerhune said:
We all balance privacy issues when we use our computers. Every email I send or website I visit, they all contain the possibility of loss of privacy. Programs I use constantly phoning home to check for updates, even Google mines our searches for information. I am comfortable with the risk i take with Logos and synchronization.
And the point is not whether or not I'm comfortable with what I currently have in Logos being synchronized. In fact, I don't much care right this second whether my notes files are synch'd or not. But I can clearly see a point where I might care, and I can clearly see where others will, and should, care. Being alert to privacy concerns (I work on the network side of the world, and know a good bit about how secure your data really is), if I see a chance to improve privacy in software, I always work in that direction. I've had these very same discussions with other folks who make software, and, in fact, with people at Verisign (now Symantic), Google, and others.
In this case, I'm approaching the problem as a customer, rather than as a partner, consultant, or in some other position. But I always argue the same case: the user should have the option of what to divulge and what not to, and the alternative should not be, "just don't use my service if you don't like it.' It just seems like a very simple principle to me--whether or not I have the specific privacy concern at this specific moment, the user should have the option of what to divulge and what not to.
At any rate, no reason to beat a dead horse.
Russ
0 -
Cooling off.......... deep breath ....................
I'm glad Logos listens and responds to it's users concerns.
edited by author
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
While many here think they are helping the customer and or Logos, faulting those who voice their disappointment does not help the situation and surely does not help Logos that might lose their business (lecturing or patronizing a customer is not known to resolve customer complaints). If you are satisfied with everything Logos does and how they handle all situations, that is great (you are the ideal customer and Logos should thank you for that), however you should allow others to think differently and give them the freedom to express themselves without being attacked and labeled (they are the people that Logos needs to woe and please in order to keep their business)
I have stayed out of the little frays for such a long time, just to insert myself into this one - dumb on my part. The things I was going to say to criticize the above paragraph mostly applied to me also.
I would delete all my posts in this section, but if I do, then everyone else's after mine loose their context.
edit - but Alain, your paragraph applies to you most of all. You are lecturing me (a customer) and telling me not to express my opinions. Just look down the loaded finger Alain, its a big ol log in your own eye. Nobody is taking away anyones right to complain, and he was not attacked, at least by me, just pointing out the flaws in the argument is not an attack.
And Russ - bad electrical cords really? Doesn't even come close to applying, burn your house down vs disagreement about privacy settings - not even as close as apples and oranges. To paraphrase you - "think before you publicly post."
0 -
Russ White said:
I'm personally disappointed that requests for privacy functionality are still being treated with such a cavalier attitude.
This issue has already been discussed extensively in multiple threads in this forum. Bob already posted a lengthy analysis of his position on this matter. To now accuse him of acting in a cavalier manner is both uninformed and unfair.
0 -
Logos President Bob Pritchett has posted a lengthy and thoughtful response here.Russ White said:I'm personally disappointed that requests for privacy functionality are still being treated with such a cavalier attitude.
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/15836/122727.aspx#122727
Russ, I notice you were active in this thread with multiple posts before Bob's reply, but never responded directly to him. Maybe you missed his post so I am providing this link in case you prefer to speak directly to his response.
Blessings
0 -
I was unaware the uservoice was a democracy. I thought it was there to inform Logos how users feel about whatever they are voting on. The system works for that designed purpose. I know we like to think Logos will allow us to choose and effect changes and policy but they never promised us that power. We were only given a mechanism by which to express ourselves.
Sometimes I ask my kids for input on what we will have for dinner. Sometimes I act on their input, sometimes I don't.They may not even get a satisfactory explanation as to why their suggestions were not followed.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I have no need for a privacy option, but as it would be incredibly simple for there to be an option in Program Settings to turn Sync off, I think Logos should do it. I understand why some users want it. If they're only using one machine, and willing to keep their own backups, why should they be forced to upload all their user data to Logos' servers?
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
I was under the impression that Logos wanted input via the uservoice page as to what was important to people and others could vote on it if it was important to them. The page shows what users (at least some of them) are interested in. There are other features with higher votes that don't appear to be accepted either. It would seem to me the answer was let it stay on the list and see where it goes but it was marked completed when people clearly didn't agree (100+ votes). It would seem to me that if it wasn't important that the idea would die on its own anyway but it seemed be going upwards.
If they're not willing to listen to input, then like I said remove that feature. If its really for only features that they like or want to implement then just say thats what the list really is for. I don't understand the point of asking for input but if you don't like the feedback to close it down.
ETA: I'm in product development for my company and it seems that the answer we generally use for requested features we're not planning to implement would be the same and apply here. ie, We don't have enough requests or believe there's enough interested customers. When we get more requests, we'll review it. We get our feedback directly from customers and open surveys. It sounded like uservoice was that avenue for more requests and to review it in the future.
0 -
James Ng said:
If the logic is well it still isn't representative of customer views, then get rid of uservoice voting.
I was an early proponent of user input based upon my experience with it for Harmony Assistant. Allowing a user voice should never be translated into majority user rule. The users' voice is one, major component of solid software development not the only or overriding component.
James Ng said:This sounds a lot to me like there isn't any listening going on.
This I agree with. I think there is a significant contingent on the forum that do not listen. I find myself often drawn into a rebutting mode - I read to build a reply rather than to understand the other point of view. Luckily, I often write but do not click the send button. If I do read to rebut I assume some others do too. However, this is a small portion of the threads and posters.
James Ng said:If so, why was it marked complete?
I think it is better to mark proposals that have been evaluated and deemed "won't be done" as complete and free the votes for projects that may be done. It would be better to have a subcategory within "done" to indicate "rejected". But at least in the test period, we and Logos are stuck with the way user voice works. I don't think it is as effective implementation as Harmony Assistant's.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
James Ng said:
I was under the impression that Logos wanted input via the uservoice page as to what was important to people and others could vote on it if it was important to them.
I'm sure they want to know all of the info tallied on uservoice. But each concern has it's own level of difficulty and expense associated with adopting it. If something is relatively easy to implement and moderatly desired I suspect it would be done quickly. If a feature is extremely difficult to integrate it may never be accomplished even with a high demand in uservoice.
I think we should have Logos version 3 available perpetually.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
While many here think they are helping the customer and or Logos, faulting those who voice their disappointment does not help the situation and surely does not help Logos that might lose their business (lecturing or patronizing a customer is not known to resolve customer complaints).
Allow me to defend myself against this one sentence which may or may not be directed partially to me.
By now you probably expect me to insist on a level of politeness no matter how much one disagrees with the original poster. Making accusations that you can not support by facts (especially if you have no way of knowing the facts), fallacies such as character assassination, the attitude "I'm right because I'm always right", etc. do not cut it with me. Just as I occasionally step in when a forum member is being mistreated, I will occasionally step in when a Logos poster is being mistreated. I am more apt to step in when the thread is on a topic that has a history of veering out of control.
People who present their disappointment with Logos' decision and/or ask for a re-evaluation are well within their rights. However, the should present their case in a manner that has a chance of convincing Logos. If they just want to vent, I would appreciate it if they do it off forum where I won't run into it or complain about the tone.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:James Ng said:
If so, why was it marked complete?
I think it is better to mark proposals that have been evaluated and deemed "won't be done" as complete and free the votes for projects that may be done. It would be better to have a subcategory within "done" to indicate "rejected". But at least in the test period, we and Logos are stuck with the way user voice works. I don't think it is as effective implementation as Harmony Assistant's.
I guess this is where the product marketing side of me is confused. We don't generally discard anything as "rejected" but more along the lines of "rejected for now" since times change, resources change, etc. Things that get closed out almost never seem to get revisited or if they do the wheel has to be reinvented or the arguments are rehashed over.
If people want to spend their votes on a feature that Logos says "rejected for now" then it still has some validity as it still tells them its important when/if they revisit it.
I have a number of items that on my product list that I don't see as ever getting productized but I'm also not going to throw it away either.
If Bob had just commented and said we're not going to do it at this time I don't think I'd be upset. All of us can understand we're not privy to all of the decision-making or agree with it but marking it complete because we're in disagreement doesn't sound like a conversation or open-minded to me. Again, just my 0.1c (adjusted for inflation and market fluctuation) [:P].
0 -
Russ White said:
Bob closed this request,
The irony is, I setup UserVoice as an experiment in listening. I didn't intend to answer/close anything, (didn't want to influence/color the voting), but was pressured into responding by people on the newsgroups and inside Logos. I guess it was a successful experiment. :-) Now it seems like an important part of our feedback loop, when it started as a late night "try our free UserVoice feature!" experiment.
I was all set to write a detailed response to this thread, when I was reminded that I already did: everything at
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/15836/122727.aspx#122727
is still relevant.
Our switch to forums (nearly a year ago), and the enthusiasm for Logos 4, has re-invigorated our user community. We're getting incredible traffic here, and (I'm sorry!) we're just not caught up to doing what we've already promised, let alone all the things asked for, let alone responding in detail to every suggestion. And if we ignore an idea, we're ignoring user input. If we quickly say "can't do that now", or "don't plan to", we get in even more trouble!
And that's just here in the forums. I've also got phone calls and direct emails. Just today, I'm A) deceptive, and
incompetent, according to correspondents, because the Mac release isn't finished. (One writer helpfully suggested that there are lots of Mac programmers available if I'd just hire and pay them. :-) )I'm not complaining -- I'm just sharing my day. It's a good life; fast growth and passionate users are wonderful problems to have.
We are listening. Always. And in the end, we're going to (largely) do what you (collectively) tell us, no matter how contrary to my plan it may be.
But we're going to bring some judgement, some prioritization, and some future planning to the decisions.
I get the privacy concern. If it turns out most (many? even a significant percentage?) of our users want a solution to guarantee prayer list and notes privacy, we'll implement it. However... even after the reasons in my earlier post:
A) It's a low priority because it's an easy work-around. We've still got "you promised!" features missing, so a problem like "I don't want you to read my prayer list" seems like something you can work around easily by not storing it in our software, at the loss of none of our core Bible study functionality. Coding it would delay a lot of other stuff more people seem even more anxious for; not coding it requires very little sacrifice for the people who care.
The proposed solution may be the wrong one. Selective sync risks horrible technical problems, and lots of extra confusion. Maybe a special "local encryption" password is a better idea. We need to C) There are future plans not yet revealed that could change people's minds. An iPhone prayer list app / feature. Ability to edit prayer lists on a web site. Ability to have a shared prayer list for a small group or church. I'd prefer we don't get everyone turning off notes and prayer list syncing before they see how cool it is to have their notes on the iPhone, on our web-based Bible, etc.
I read an article (by Danny Hillis, in Wired, years ago) about when the writer's grandfather got a telephone, and made them install it in the barn. When told most people put it in the kitchen, he responded "I'm not going to let any fool ring a bell in my kitchen!"
Perfectly sensible, and he got more years of peace from telemarketers. But he was bringing "today's sensibilities" to "tomorrow's technology." The phone wasn't just a bell in his kitchen, it was a way to summon medical help, to check crop prices, to stay in touch with friends, etc. etc. They just didn't know it yet. Today most of us think a phone is so important that we strap one to our belt every waking hour, something Hillis' grandfather would have thought crazy.
And sometimes it is. But it sure beats needing to saddle a horse to fetch a doctor 15 miles away.
Part of my job is to listen, and address your concerns. Part of it is to ignore your concerns, so we can all get to something even better. It's a balancing act, it's subjective, and I'm wrong (or late) lots of the time. But it's worth doing, because if we didn't push in some new (and even uncomfortable) directions, we'd end up with a very hacked up, button-heavy, feature-ridden, impossible-to-learn Bible software program still based on 1992 C code for 16-bit Windows.
Henry Ford said "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they'd have said faster horses." (And yes, I know he ignored their requests for color cars. It is a balancing act. But I'd rather have had his cheap, black automobile than a colorful horse.)
To wrap up my rambling... I think we're going to like the cloud and sync. I think we're all going to like it more than we hate its annoyances. I think we're going to find the risk that a Logos programmer reads our Bible study notes to be less worrisome than the risk we lose our notes when our computer is stolen or crashes.
And if we need to offer some colors for this one-color auto, (like allowing you to encrypt your notes / prayer lists / etc.), it'll be okay to get to that a bit down the road, once we've got the factory built and all the kinks worked out of the engine design. Ford did offer colors later, but it probably was a good idea to drop that variable while getting the assembly line concept perfected. We're still learning about syncs bandwidth and storage requirements; we are actually re-writing the backend right now in light of what we learned from the initial release. I don't want to add the complexity of "some synced data" or unreadable encrypted data that would make errors and data corruption hard to see when we are still tinkering with the fundamentals.
Sorry this is so long... but I hope it helps you see why we're responding as we are.
-- Bob
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Alain Maashe said:
While many here think they are helping the customer and or Logos, faulting those who voice their disappointment does not help the situation and surely does not help Logos that might lose their business (lecturing or patronizing a customer is not known to resolve customer complaints).
Allow me to defend myself against this one sentence which may or may not be directed partially to me.
By now you probably expect me to insist on a level of politeness no matter how much one disagrees with the original poster. Making accusations that you can not support by facts (especially if you have no way of knowing the facts), fallacies such as character assassination, the attitude "I'm right because I'm always right", etc. do not cut it with me. Just as I occasionally step in when a forum member is being mistreated, I will occasionally step in when a Logos poster is being mistreated. I am more apt to step in when the thread is on a topic that has a history of veering out of control.
People who present their disappointment with Logos' decision and/or ask for a re-evaluation are well within their rights. However, the should present their case in a manner that has a chance of convincing Logos. If they just want to vent, I would appreciate it if they do it off forum where I won't run into it or complain about the tone.
MJ,
You are right we should not make accusation that we cannot support, claim to know what is going on in someone’s mind or use fallacies to support our arguments. The funny part is that it is easy to do the very thing we speak against if we are not careful. You have used very strong words to qualify a few of the comments in this thread and others. Words or expressions like “slander”, or “character assassination” are very powerful and can easily be perceived as an attack on the character of the person accused of doing these things (e.g. being a slanderer is not exactly a compliment and says something about one’s character since it involves malice and arguing something that one knows is false). Unless you know what is going on in someone mind (and their mental processes), you should not use those words lightly, doing so cheapen their true meaning.
To be brutally honest, (and apart from the need for users to be courteous to one another) unless you are a forum moderator (able to delete posts or otherwise censor comments) or unless you are a decision maker at Logos what does or does not cut it with you (the same would apply to me) or what you appreciate or do not appreciate (again, the same would also apply to me) is of little consequence ( I am aware of the fact that this applies to my post also) I doubt people post their complaints to please you or me, or require your approval or mine.
I am glad (and Bob response testifies to that fact) that Logos does not take the approach that customers (and paying customers at that) “should present their case in a manner that has a chance of convincing Logos”. This would go against everything good customer service is all about.
Yes customers can be a pain, unfair, rude, and disrespectful … but this should not matter to the business. “They hurt my feelings” is not a valid reason to reject complaints that might be valid despite a “poor” presentation. I should know that, as an instructor I receive students’ evaluations and they are not always kind (to put it mildly).
One of the reasons that I love Logos as a company (which does not mean I am pleased with everything) is exemplified by Bob’s response: customer support from the top and by the book that seeks to appease rather than enflame the already irate customer (helping Logos would mean following the same pattern). The customer might not like the answer but will certainly appreciate the gesture.
Alain
0 -
Great response Bob, and I'm very appreciative for the job you carry out (joyfully it seems) even amidst all the name calling. You can't please everyone, little lone try to do it all at once, but you have my sincere thanks for the job you do.
Logos Platinum
Windows 7 - 64 Bit
Lenovo laptop E520 i7-2640M, 2.8GHz 8G Ram, 2G GraphicsAustralia
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
what you appreciate or do not appreciate (again, the same would also apply to me) is of little consequence ( I am aware of the fact that this applies to my post also) I doubt people post their complaints to please you or me, or require your approval or mine.
Again, I agree with this statement. However, it omits the fact that we have been asked to police ourselves - a charge I take very seriously given why Damian resigned his MVP status.
Alain Maashe said:Yes customers can be a pain, unfair, rude, and disrespectful … but this should not matter to the business.
Simply my point of view here - but if we expect more of Logos because they are a Christian company, shouldn't we also expect more of ourselves because we are Christian? I find it bizarre that I read far more that is rude, demanding, self-centered, insulting, fallacious on these boards than any other board I have had reason to follow. So much so that when I recommend Logos to Catholic and Anglican friends, I suggest they contact me directly when they have questions rather than expose them to these forums. When they are fully hooked on Logos, I ease them into the forums. Note that this was not true on the new groups where participation was small enough that posters got to know each other and there was not the frustration of an incomplete product.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bob's first paragraph pretty much says it all:
We're not anti-privacy. I like it myself. But taking on privacy needs for others is a massive responsibility, and an expensive one to implement well. So we go out of our way to disclaim responsibility and to encourage you to NOT store private or confidential information in our software.
Making lots of tough privacy policy and promises just creates a higher standard that we could be legally held to. If we were a bank, I'd consider that a cost of doing business. Since we're (largely) a sermon preparation tool, and sermons are designed to be preached aloud in public, it seems like a wiser use of our resources to put money into content, user interface, and service, rather than building a fortress to protect sermon notes.
I understand the sensitivity of prayer lists. If yours are that sensitive, don't use our prayer list feature. (It was just a "freebie add-on" to our core function; it's not the heart of our software.) If we get pressed to the wall, we're more likely to remove the prayer list feature than to implement guaranteed iron-clad security.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0
