Bug: Expansion of manually entered passages in Search

I'll submit your request; thank you.

This is sync'd to 4.0d in one Search tab (similar layout to 4.1 beta):-

Notice that Genesis and Psalms are greyed out. In the other Search tab they are NOT greyed!

I do not want to see my abbreviated entry as well as the expanded entry in the Passage drop down list ie. if I entered Gen as the reference range with no title I'm happy to see only Genesis in the list!

This is by design, however, you can accomplish what you want by only entering the Reference Range (i.e., 'Genesis') with no Title before saving the custom range.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157948#Comment_157948

This is by design, however, you can accomplish what you want by only entering the Reference Range (i.e., 'Genesis') with no Title before saving the custom range.

Ummm .. that's exactly what I have been doing. The beta has taken my original references from 4.0d (image above) and expanded them. Those with a title in 4.0d were entered with a title. Let me illustrate:-

Ref Range Title Result

4.0d Gen - Genesis

Beta Gen - Genesis (=Gen)

I now note that I get the same result as 4.0d in B5 but not when I posted the bug; and I still have ranges that were "corrupted" by that beta as you can see comparing the images from 4.0d with the first post! All the references in the beta image were entered in 4.0d or earlier.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158161#Comment_158161

I now note that I get the same result as 4.0d in B5 but not when I posted the bug

Except that Psalms is listed against one resource (NAS) and Psalms (=Ps) is listed against another resource (ESV)!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158510#Comment_158510

bump

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/159144#Comment_159144

bump

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/160514#Comment_160514

bump

I think I read in another thread that Melissa's on vacation. If so, it is well deserved!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/160516#Comment_160516

Then, am I the only one experiencing this bug?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/160563#Comment_160563

Then, am I the only one experiencing this bug?

No. Here's my range list:

I don't know what all the equals signs are for. It's a very confusing display.

This is what it used to look like (from March):

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/160573#Comment_160573

Since this doesn't occur with new reference ranges in the latest 4.1 beta, the resolution is to delete current custom ranges and recreate them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/161688#Comment_161688

Since this doesn't occur with new reference ranges in the latest 4.1 beta

The problem still exists in B7 & the resolution has been tried without success since B5!

Let me show you. The red lined references are from 4.0d. the others were entered anew against the NRSV.

So far so good.

The next one is the result of changing the resource from NRSV to ESV:-

Now this what I see in 4.0d (after Sync'ing) except it does not change with resource:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/161688#Comment_161688

Since this doesn't occur with new reference ranges in the latest 4.1 beta, the resolution is to delete current custom ranges and recreate them.

I have a similar problem with changing resources that Dave shows above. I deleted all of my ranges, and then created a new one, "Genesis", with the ESV selected as the Bible. (Syncing doesn't affect anything for me, but I'm only running one instance of L4)

Looks good, but if I change the Bible to something else, I get the unnecessary stuff after the range name:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162008#Comment_162008

I have a similar problem with changing resources that Dave shows above. I deleted all of my ranges, and then created a new one, "Genesis", with the ESV selected as the Bible. (Syncing doesn't affect anything for me, but I'm only running one instance of L4)

Perhaps this has changed in the build I'm running. Let's wait to see if Beta 8 resolves the problem.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162017#Comment_162017

Let's wait to see if Beta 8 resolves the problem.

It doesn't!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162211#Comment_162211

It doesn't!

Is this with a new reference range? Are you entering it as I have below and clicking Save?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162377#Comment_162377

Is this with a new reference range? Are you entering it as I have below and clicking Save?

I have the problem too. I'm not using "Save"--I just type the range and hit Enter.

I deleted the previous Genesis range, and re-did it exactly as in my previous post. And the problem still exists as shown in the previous post: the "(=Gen)" still appears after "Genesis" when I switch to NRSV (from ESV).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162377#Comment_162377

Is this with a new reference range? Are you entering it as I have below and clicking Save?

No! I click Save only when I enter a title:-

I enter Gen as Reference and hit Enter.

I enter Matt-John as Reference, then Gospels as Title and click Save.

Refer my last screen shots to see how they are then listed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162444#Comment_162444

Is this with a new reference range? Are you entering it as I have below and clicking Save?

No! I click Save only when I enter a title:-

I enter Gen as Reference and hit Enter.

I enter Matt-John as Reference, then Gospels as Title and click Save.

Refer my last screen shots to see how they are then listed.

This is how it was explained to me:

You will also see the (= Gen) range when you choose a resource other than the one you created the reference with; (= Gen) is different than (Gen).

When I tested this, by changing the 'ESV' as the Bible to search to 'Top Bibles', the range extension "(=Gen)" was added. This is by design.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162479#Comment_162479

When I tested this, by changing the 'ESV' as the Bible to search to 'Top Bibles', the range extension "(=Gen)" was added. This is by design.

Which design? When did it kick in? It has worked perfectly well in 4.0d and earlier as described above until 4.1 beta when all this (=Gen) stuff is appended - which is repeating the reference range that I input. Now i have to accept lists with/without the (=Gen) depending where I input the range??

How can Gospels (Matt-John = Matt- John) be an acceptable display? I shudder to think of the text box size for WOC-Gospels if it repeats the input range!

(= Gen) is different than (Gen).

It looks different as well! But what is the relevance. And, yes, I'm very upset with all this nonsense over a simple input that worked well until 4.1 beta.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162670#Comment_162670

(= Gen) is different than (Gen).

It looks different as well! But what is the relevance. And, yes, I'm very upset with all this nonsense over a simple input that worked well until 4.1 beta

Yes, I think this should be explained so at least we can document it to be able to answer all the questions about it that are going to appear in the forums. It's certainly not self-explanatory, and it's not in the release notes that I'm aware of.

I'm with you, Dave. Why is this needed? If it is, maybe it could be kept hidden in a rollover pop-up until needed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162680#Comment_162680

I'm with you, Dave. Why is this needed?

Thanks, Todd

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162685#Comment_162685

We're reviewing this, especially for situations where the verse ranges are equal. When verse ranges are different in different books, we want to make users aware of the change.

Todd White

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/162680#Comment_162680

Why is this needed?

Here are the 4 situations that can occur.

Resource the range is built for:

Range is different in another versification:

Range doesn't exist in another versification:

Different resource but range appears to be identical:

Situation 2 is the feature we intended to add; however, I'm with you in thinking 4 seems unnecesarily verbose. I'll see if we can make 4 look like 1 since the additional text doesn't add anything.