Community Typo Repair & Hyperlink Creation/Repair
As Bob has made so clear in some recent post regarding the cost of creating a digital work, we recognize that a huge portion of the cost of making digital works in Logos is creating links as well as typo repair from OCR. The links within Logos digital works are one of the main things that give them their value over paper-and-ink or web-based versions of the same work. HOwever, we often find that the linking is inconsistent (very well done in some places are not-done-at-all in others, Grudem's Systematic Theology is a good example of this) or incorrect (often verse references where the chapter is not provided is not correct, the tagger obviously was not reading the text around the reference and just guessed).
I therefore propose again a way that we, the users of Logos, could help defray the costs and improve the quality. I have two different types of proposals for this:
- Works not yet published: Active Logos users could read the text as scanned and formatted and then create keylinks and fix typos. If two or three Logos users are working on a single text, all corrections and link creations would have to be agreed upon by at least two of the users to go into the final version. Logos would then provide the works to the volunteers free-of-charge and perhaps a small unlock credit as a thank you. The user would get the benefit of being able to read the work and be a part of getting the book to market. It is obvious from forum involvement that there are a number of users willing to volunteer a lot of time to help make Logos better.
- Works already published:
Typos: When a critical number (3?) users propose the exact same typo fix, it should automatically be accepted and the digital file updated. This could be done without human intervention on Logos' side, allowing product improvement without significant cost to Logos. Also, perhaps a few users who have consistently proven to suggest quality typo suggestions could be invited to an MVP-like program where they could review typo suggestions and approve them or reject them. When 2 volunteer MVPs make the same determination on a typo suggestion, it would automatically be accepted or rejected. The MVPs could either do this out of sheer love for Logos or be given unlock credits for their services. This would be much cheaper than hiring Logos employees to do this work. The quality of the output would likely be the same or better than if a Logos employee did it. Logos would save money and the quality of the product would be improved. - Hyperlinks: This is the area I think has the greatest potential for improvement. Add a "Suggest link" option underneath the "Report typo" option on the right-click menu. If a critical number of users (2 or 3?) suggest the same link be created, it should automatically be adopted. Oftentimes, when a resources is referenced that I know is in my library but is not linked (either because it was just missed or because that resource was not available in Logos at the time of publication), I look it up anyway. That process takes about a minute. Very time consuming for a Logos employee, but free if you let users do it. Then if those suggestions are automatically accepted because a critical number of users suggested the same link (or because an MVP(s) as described above accepts it), we get better quality resources at minimal to know cost to Logos.
I hope that these suggestions or some variation on them can be implemented in the future by Logos to help decrease our costs to purchase books, to improve quality, and to develop an even more committed and involved Logos customer base.
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org
Comments
-
I volunteer for the typos! That's one of the skills that God has given to me: to recognize misspelled words at 60 paces. Been that way my whole life -- even when beaten by a girl (!!) at the National Spelling Bee in D.C. many, many years ago. hah!
This suggestion has been given before over the years and it would be a worthwhile investment on the part of LOGOS.
God bless
{charley}
running Logos Bible Software 6.0a: Collector's Edition on HP e9220y (AMD Phenom II X4 2.60GHz 8.00GB 64-bit Win 7 Pro SP1) & iPad (mini) apps.
0 -
Dr. Charles A. Wootten said:
This suggestion has been given before over the years and it would be a worthwhile investment on the part of LOGOS.
I know I give this suggestion probably about annually, and now that we have a web-integrated Logos app (and Logos stating publicly that these things add greatly to the cost of resource production) perhaps it could be a reality?
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org0 -
I really like this idea. I really don't like the process now of typo stuff. I have recently gone back to check some typos that I reported a while back and they are still not corrected.
I understand that Logos is inundated with L4 questions about indexer not working and just program stuff. Sooner or later they will want to keep on improving L4 if not L5 or L6 (incorporation of artificial intelligence) or "think it and it does it" [8-|]
It would only be obvious that there would be at least 1 if not 4 or 5 typos in a single resource. (I have personally found 8 in a single book). If we multiply that...80,000 typos!
I would assume at some level a book is data....and not useable in the logos system. We could help at this level....It would only make sure that books are the best they can be.
EDIT Did I add that I too pay attn to the Detail. I inspected any and all aircrew survival gear for the Navy. Got to be detail oriented!
0 -
+1 [Y]
This is a good idea, Jacob. Like Charles, I am gifted with being able to spot a typo on a full page (or screen) of text without even reading the whole page. I don't know how I do it -- they just jump out at me. (I haven't found a lot of them in Logos yet probably because I haven't spent much time with the actual text of my resources yet. I've been spending most of my time working with the software, the forum, the wiki, and shopping on logos.com!)
Regarding your idea of having this automated if a "critical number" of people report the same typo or suggest the same hyperlink, I'd rather see MVP editors manually reviewing things (I know you also suggested that as a second possibility). First, it would be relatively unlikely that two or more people would report the exact same typo within a reasonable amount of time, so most typo reports would probably end up lingering for months and months, and the people who reported them would be just as frustrated as they currently are. The selection would have to line up exactly (including or not including spaces and punctuation before/after the word or phrase with the typo in it) in order for a match to be found and the replacement to be able to happen seamlessly and automatically and be correct.
Second, the current way of reporting typos gives people a free-form text field for typing comments. I sometimes have to explain myself when reporting a typo. It isn't always a simple case of text substitution. There might be a formatting glitch or a funky character or whatever. Some human being needs to read all these comments and decide what to do about them. Even when the comments field is left blank, I don't think you can always do an automatic text substitution without human intervention. The typo might have included a selection of several words, and the base text might have had some other (sometimes invisible) things in it besides the text. In those cases, a human would need to make the change to make sure that footnote references or tagging that intervene between words being replaced isn't disrupted.
These are not unsolvable problems. But some thought and significant programming time would need to go into making sure this was done correctly so as not to allow well-meaning, coordinated users to inadvertently introduce more bugs in the process of fixing typos.
I really like the idea of a program of MVP Editors (MVPEs) who could confer with each other on fixing typos and hyperlinks in return for, say, free credit towards unlocks for every so many hours volunteered. The logistics of that would be hard to overcome, too. Logos would have to give private password-protected access to its source texts for resources, and include MVPEs in the same source control that they use internally so that an MVPE couldn't check out a file to be making changes in it if some Logos employee (or another MVPE) already had that file checked out; otherwise they'd be wiping out each other's work. Doing this all remotely over the Internet would pose a number of security and quality assurance hurdles. Again, not unsolvable, but I am sure all these things have crossed the minds of the Logos leadership team whenever this suggestion has come up before, and they've not done anything about it thus far because it seems daunting to solve them all.
And as for volunteers helping to get not-yet-published works into production sooner by helping fix the OCR typos -- YES, YES, YES!!! So many of these texts have been "Under Development" for so long, that I'm sure there are eager beavers among the users who would like to help get them finished. There would need to be legal agreements signed to ensure that users thus engaged didn't take the scanned text and email it or publish it online somewhere. There would need to be training in Logos's style guidelines in order to ensure consistency of formatting and linking. And all the volunteers' work would need to be proofed by Logos employees anyway, so it might not save them a huge amount of time to have us putting in the links. But fixing OCR typos would probably be a big help.
0 -
Great idea! If there was a way we could help I would be happy to volunteer too.
0 -
I'd be happy to help. I've been submitting typos/editing corrections/etc to the ISV for their almost finished Old Testament translation. I enjoy that type of work and have an eye for it like some of the other users.
0 -
I report typos often so this would be a natural. Plus, it'd get me into reading a whole volume at a time instead of snatches as searches bring it to my attention. My only concern would be that I do like to highlight as I read. I don't want to have to read a book for typos outside of 4.0 and then get it in an integration in which I'd have to reread in order to highlight. (I hope that made sense.)
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
Great idea! If there was a way we could help I would be happy to volunteer too.
Count me in!
I'd have to do some "dumbed down" work like straight typos....nothing that takes any theologial horsepower.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Mark E. Ryman said:
I report typos often so this would be a natural. Plus, it'd get me into reading a whole volume at a time instead of snatches as searches bring it to my attention. My only concern would be that I do like to highlight as I read. I don't want to have to read a book for typos outside of 4.0 and then get it in an integration in which I'd have to reread in order to highlight. (I hope that made sense.)
You could print it and read it on paper and highlight it the old fashioned way as you read for typos, then when you get it in L4, just transfer the highlights into Logos (you wouldn't have to reread it, just skip ahead to where the next highlight was on paper and search for that text in L4 and put the highlight in).
0 -
Jacob Hantla said:
- Works already published:
Typos: When a critical number (3?) users propose the exact same typo fix, it should automatically be accepted and the digital file updated. This could be done without human intervention on Logos' side, allowing product improvement without significant cost to Logos. Also, perhaps a few users who have consistently proven to suggest quality typo suggestions could be invited to an MVP-like program where they could review typo suggestions and approve them or reject them. When 2 volunteer MVPs make the same determination on a typo suggestion, it would automatically be accepted or rejected. The MVPs could either do this out of sheer love for Logos or be given unlock credits for their services. This would be much cheaper than hiring Logos employees to do this work. The quality of the output would likely be the same or better than if a Logos employee did it. Logos would save money and the quality of the product would be improved. - Hyperlinks: This is the area I think has the greatest potential for improvement. Add a "Suggest link" option underneath the "Report typo" option on the right-click menu. If a critical number of users (2 or 3?) suggest the same link be created, it should automatically be adopted. Oftentimes, when a resources is referenced that I know is in my library but is not linked (either because it was just missed or because that resource was not available in Logos at the time of publication), I look it up anyway. That process takes about a minute. Very time consuming for a Logos employee, but free if you let users do it. Then if those suggestions are automatically accepted because a critical number of users suggested the same link (or because an MVP(s) as described above accepts it), we get better quality resources at minimal to know cost to Logos.
I hope that these suggestions or some variation on them can be implemented in the future by Logos to help decrease our costs to purchase books, to improve quality, and to develop an even more committed and involved Logos customer base.
With Vyrso and non Logos Editions being published we will have a large volume of works added without appropriate cross referencing. At the same time you have a large volume of Logos users who are more than capable of creating these cross-references. I think that now more than ever these suggestions could greatly improve the quality of Logos books overall with minimal cost to Logos.
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org0 - Works already published:
-
Jacob Hantla said:
With Vyrso and non Logos Editions being published we will have a large volume of works added without appropriate cross referencing. At the same time you have a large volume of Logos users who are more than capable of creating these cross-references. I think that now more than ever these suggestions could greatly improve the quality of Logos books overall with minimal cost to Logos.
We will also probably suddenly have a large volume of works with less careful proofreading and thus more typos in them. I wonder if Logos is planning to keep up with the typo fixing with Vyrso books, now that they get the text from someone else and thus don't really have the right (or the time/motivation) to edit it before publishing it.
0 -
Great idea![Y]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Hi
I found that a member asked same question in this forum some months ago.
Pls use search box to find this questions with comments0 -
Hi Hamburg113 - and welcome to the forums.
hamburg113 said:Hi
I found that a member asked same question in this forum some months ago.
Pls use search box to find this questions with commentsTo which question are you referring?
Graham
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
We will also probably suddenly have a large volume of works with less careful proofreading and thus more typos in them.
I would expect that Logos will do very little to the version sent them by the publisher, especially given Bob's remark about pagination being a matter of the publisher's practice. If the publisher is sending essentially the same file to the printer, Amazon for Kindle, B&N for Nook ... etc. I would expect the proofreading to be very good. But then, really, we just have to wait and see.
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 -
Graham Criddle said:
Hi Hamburg113 - and welcome to the forums.
hamburg113 said:Hi
I found that a member asked same question in this forum some months ago.
Pls use search box to find this questions with commentsTo which question are you referring?
Graham
I suspect Hamburg is a bot. I reported it.
But I do think this is still an excellent idea that I hope is implemented especially with the introduction of Vyrso
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org0 -
Jacob Hantla said:
Typos: When a critical number (3?) users propose the exact same typo fix, it should automatically be accepted and the digital file updated. This could be done without human intervention on Logos' side, allowing product improvement without significant cost to Logos.
Not sure this is such a great idea as it first sounds. Just the other day someone was annoyed about a lot of moe's in his Bible. Turned out moe was a perfectly legitimate AV form for more. It doesn't matter how many people report that "typo", they're still wrong, and an automated "fix" is the last thing we need. We'd end up with 10 times more typos instead of a few less.
I've also gotten the impression that Logos in most cases doesn't have either the will or the license to correct typos that occur in the print version as well. Which means that whoever does the job must have access to the printed book.
And lastly, do we really want files updated one typo at a time? I know I don't. It would probably mean hours of downloads and dozens of hours of indexing every single week. No thanks! While I certainly share everyone's wish that the most important reference works were fixed by now, I also definitely prefer that they fix 500 links and typos in one resource and then ship that, rather than spending the same amount of time fixing 5 typos and links in each of a hundred resources and forcing me to redownload and reindex all that.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Fgh...
you make a lot of valid points.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Crowd-sourcing definitely works for tasks like this. What's crucial is the right tools to make the job as painless as possible, and the right people to support it. What if the tool displayed pending changes on a web-page for people to review before being published. If sufficient people voted 'no', the correction would be referred to a staff member. If no-one objected, it would be accepted. The tool could also ensure that updates were timely, and not too often. The fact that we, the community, dealt with the moe/more question in a matter of hours demonstrates that we have the right people and that crowd-sourcing would work. As a very famous Briton said to the Americans a few generations ago: "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job" (though he ended up needed a little more help than that, of course!).
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 -
This sounds popular (on the whole). Is it on User Voice yet?
0 -
thank you; If you want more information.
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->If you want to get more materials that related to this
topic, you can visit: Employee review phrasesBest regards.
0 -
fgh said:Jacob Hantla said:
Typos: When a critical number (3?) users propose the exact same typo fix, it should automatically be accepted and the digital file updated. This could be done without human intervention on Logos' side, allowing product improvement without significant cost to Logos.
Not sure this is such a great idea as it first sounds. Just the other day someone was annoyed about a lot of moe's in his Bible. Turned out moe was a perfectly legitimate AV form for more. It doesn't matter how many people report that "typo", they're still wrong, and an automated "fix" is the last thing we need. We'd end up with 10 times more typos instead of a few less.
Absolutely correct. The reported typo must be compared to the original to ensure that errors are not being introduced in the process. Even if the correction is to a real error, the electronic edition should agree with the print. The only way such errors should be corrected is if the publisher issues a corrected edition.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
