Passage lists are now duplicating the references... To me this seems like a bug!
I noticed that too. I thought that I just missed it before...but it must be new.
I went and found another screen shot of a passage list in use; this is definitely a new behavior.
Probably just a bug, but here's one possible suggestion. Since some translations use different verse names or even different versification, and since the passage list can display multiple translations, perhaps the extra display is to show what the reference is for that particular translation.
In the past, if there was a difference in verse mapping it would show up. When the verse maps were the same nothing would be displayed. If it was intentionally changed I request that it be changed back!
Probably just a bug, but here's one possible suggestion. Since some translations use different verse names or even different versification, and since the passage list can display multiple translations, perhaps the extra display is to show what the reference is for that particular translation. In the past, if there was a difference in verse mapping it would show up. When the verse maps were the same nothing would be displayed. If it was intentionally changed I request that it be changed back!
I like the feature as I can now open PL references in alternate bibles for comparison eg. the search hit is in ESV but I can open the NAS to see the result. It would be improved if the first (stand alone) reference was not the Preferred Bible but that is a 50/50 with respect to other uses of the PL.
[Y]
We are looking into this. Thanks.
I don't think it's a bug. I think it just looks like a bug when only 1 verse is mentioned. But if there is a range, then each individual verse number is displayed. If they were to remove this feature/bug then versification might not be as apparent. At least that's what I'm guessing they were aiming for:
If they were to remove this feature/bug then versification might not be as apparent.
It provides a reference that matches the text of the nominated bible (ESV in your example). The first column reference is usually your preferred Bible (may not be ESV). Here is an example with 3 nominated bibles (my preferred is ESV):-
The reference in the second column corresponds to the bible name.
Okay guys - here's an example or would you prefer a bit of Jeremiah to illustrate the point?
I agree that that should happen if the verse-map is different if it isn't then it seems very redundant.
I'll grant you that there are some inconsistencies I don't like:
1) I get both the full translation name AND the abbreviation - I only need to be told one
2) except that I don't get the abbreviation if its the current default (or first?) translation - I like consistency
3) and if there is only one translation (or the default translation only), citation is confusing redundancy.
I'd rather make the division between 1 version vs. more than 1 version rather than on verse-mapping.
But other than that I like the way it works.[:P]
i hope they keep the format that is in 4.0d
How do you propose that they handle differences in versification within this format?
i agree with Kevin
How do you propose that they handle differences in versification within this format? i agree with Kevin I agree that that should happen if the verse-map is different if it isn't then it seems very redundant.
I'm confused by your post. On one hand you quote my question about a proposal to revert to the prior format. Then you seem to be making the point that you prefer Kevin's proposal based on the current format preferring his suggestion based on multiple verse maps versus my suggestion that it be based on multiple translations. So I don't quite understand what you are proposing.
My reasoning for suggesting multiple translations rather than multiple verse maps is that gives 2 rather than 3 formats for displaying - visual consistency, less branches for testing, simpler code ... all that sort of stuff.
How can it be redundant if there is no reference for the text? Steve's 3 column example from 4.0d shows a reference for the preferred bible in column 1 but there are no references for the nominated translations in the other columns!
The code to implement this list within the window is probably implemented via a loop (For, While, Do, etc.). It would take little code to sequence through the list and set a boolean if versification differs from the verse on the left column (they already have to determine this regardless). If the versification boolean is true, then display as shown in your example image above (including the extra verse identification next to the Bible text). If the versification boolean is false, then don't include the extra verse identification next to the Bible text). This would only cost an extra If/Else statement. Thus for those whose list is not containing differing versification, the redundant inclusion of passage verses would not be shown. This also saves precious screen space (by not duplicating the verse reference). In my opinion it would look cleaner for those who don't use translations where versification difference occur. Those who do use translations where versification differences occurs really have few options and need the extra verse identifications.
How do you propose that they handle differences in versification within this format? The code to implement this list within the window is probably implemented via a loop (For, While, Do, etc.). It would take little code to sequence through the list and set a boolean if versification differs from the verse on the left column (they already have to determine this regardless). If the versification boolean is true, then display as shown in your example image above (including the extra verse identification next to the Bible text). If the versification boolean is false, then don't include the extra verse identification next to the Bible text). This would only cost an extra If/Else statement. Thus for those whose list is not containing differing versification, the redundant inclusion of passage verses would not be shown. This also saves precious screen space (by not duplicating the verse reference). In my opinion it would look cleaner for those who don't use translations where versification difference occur. Those who do use translations where versification differences occurs really have few options and need the extra verse identifications.
Actually, my intended question was much simpler - I wasn't wondering about the coding, I was wondering about the visual layout. The current layout has a logical layout ... one that I think has some serious problems of its own. The prior layout which you propose has no logical positioning for the reference information - which I find equally problematic. Both layouts could be manipulated into a satisfactory solution with a different set of advantages and disadvantages,
When I look at Steve's example, that's not how I interpret it. The reference on the right applies to everything in the its row. That is why I see redundancy in listing a reference before each verse.
The redundancy is most clear when one version is nominated. My top Bible is the ESV. I ran a Bible search for love limited to Isaiah. From the results I saved as a passage list.
In this example I did not work with anything but my top preferred Bible and yet the references appear twice. I'd call that redundant any day.
Here's an example when verse-maps make a difference.
My suggestion would be that when 1 version is displayed on the passage list that the references in the left hand side adjust to the versemap of the displayed reference (even if it would display differently in the compact list). There are a couple of possibilities for 2 or more versions like the above screen shot. I would prefer that the first version's map be showed in the left hand column and when subsequent columns differ then that references is displayed. Since the 2nd column header says BHS, the BHS probably wouldn't be needed next to the secondary reference in each row.
There are a couple of possibilities for 2 or more versions like the above screen shot. I would prefer that the first version's map be showed in the left hand column and when subsequent columns differ then that references is displayed.
I would be content with first column = first translation (replacing preferred). But subsequent translations should always have a reference so that one can also link directly to their bible.
I think this is a very workable solution. [Y]
