I've noticed a new trend lately in some resources that have shipped over the past couple of months. Previously, Logos made it quite clear that the type "Dictionary" was for true dictionaries, where each entry was a definition of a headword, either in the same language or in another language for foreign language dictionaries. "Encyclopedia" was the type for resources where each entry was an article on a headword (thus Bible Dictionaries, even though they have "dictionary" in their title are Encyclopedias in Logos's taxonomy).
But now we've got the following new resources which are all type Dictionary. I think this is incorrect and they should be Encyclopedias, and I've reported it as such in the Metadata Correction Proposals wiki page.
If I'm wrong, would someone please explain the new strategy to me?
How to Ask for Help | Logos Wiki | My Machine Specs | My Blog
Thanks Rosie. We'll look into getting these fixed.
The resource type has been updated.
Glad to hear it. However, there's a whole page full of metadata errors at Metadata correction proposals, and most of them have been there for months or even years. Could you please fix at least the easy ones, and then keep fixing them as they are added.
When the metadata is wrong, books don't get included in collections they should be included in. And when books aren't included in collections they should be included in, they don't turn up in searches where they should have turned up. And when they don't turn up in searches where they should have turned up, one may end up missing the most relevant search hit one had in one's library -- and waste hours looking through less good ones.
Also, you're supposed to move things from the page above to Metadata correction proposals – Addressed by Logos when you fix them. You missed that part.
"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received." Wilfrid Stinissen
Mac Pro OS 10.9.
Kyle G. Anderson: The resource type has been updated.
Thanks for the quick fixes, Kyle!
I echo fgh's request that you continue looking at the wiki page as a repository of metadata yet to be fixed, and move them out to the archive page once they've been fixed. It helps us continue to believe it's worth our while reporting things, and we have a place to check to see whether something we find has been reported already or not. Keeping the archive page going isn't so important, IMO, but I guess it's a nice record of accomplishments.
Rosie Perera:Keeping the archive page going isn't so important, IMO
Agreed. If you've done what we asked, I see no particular need to move things there, but if you've denied or altered a request, I appreciate the ability to see an explanation. And, of course, removing things from the first page is important.
Getting Subject metadata correct is important if you've seen some of the long, complicated rules using Title and Author with ANDNOT.
I even added a rule so you (Logos) could identify commentaries with Subject issues. It is worth noting that they correspond to bible commentaries that I have objected to being classed as such i.e. their Subject matter (e.g. Handbooks, Outlines, Introductions) supports my objection! But if their Type is correct then the Subject should be consistent with all other commentaries.
Dave===
Windows 10 & Android 8
Bump.
Thanks for the reminder. I agree it's important to keep the proposal page up to date when we make a fix.
Addressing these corrections is always on our list. Due to other priorities, we have hit a stretch where we haven't been able to fix any in awhile. I apologize for this.