BUG, or "When did this change?" PG Commentaries now shows section name.

I was staring at my passage guide trying to figure out what I was looking at when I realized that the PG commentaries section no longer just displays the resource title. Now it also displays the section name--is this new in 5.1 or have I just been non-observant?

I don't like it because it makes it hard to identify resources. Often the section name will take up the entire line and it completely hides the resource title. I like that the mouseover on the section name does provide a content preview pop-up that people have asked for, but I think it makes it more difficult to use.

I like to use the passage guide in a narrow window like below, and the change makes it near impossible to tell which resource is which:

It even hides the "star", which (although I never use it) shouldn't disappear for proper interface design.

Even if I have the window wider, it is still a problem in some instances. And the fact that the resource names are after the section names makes it hard to scan to find a particular series.

Could the resource name be put first? Please? That would be my preference--it is more important than the section name.

I can see a similar problem occurring when the resource name is too long, but maybe the short name could be used in those instances (or all instances, if necessary).

I realize this is the way that the Collections section has acted since the beginning, but since I use it less than the Commentaries section, I haven't been bothered until now. I would prefer that the Collections section also put the resource title first as well.

Section names are pretty useless in general, and especially in commentaries, as can be seen from the examples.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Section names are pretty useless in general.

kelly.flones

I am able to reproduce this and will send a case to Development for investigation.

kelly.flones

It even hides the "star", which (although I never use it) shouldn't disappear for proper interface design.

I am able to reproduce this issue and will create a case for Development.

Mark Barnes

I think it changed with 5.1. It certainly was never like this when L5 launched - and it's a horrible change. It's changed in the Cross References section too, where it's just as inappropriate. It's OK to do this in the Collections section, but not in the Commentaries or Cross References sections (which are look-ups not searches, and will therefore only return one result per resource, and therefore the resource name is what matters).

Just try finding the commentary you need at a glance in this lot:

Todd Phillips

It's changed in the Cross References section too, where it's just as inappropriate.

Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have noticed that since there's always the same two resources listed there. I agree.

That's quite the screenshot you posted.

Dave Hooton

Totally agree with Todd and Mark. Please revert to 5.0b format.

Graham Criddle

Totally agree with Todd and Mark. Please revert to 5.0b format.

Agreed

MJ. Smith

Totally agree with Todd and Mark. Please revert to 5.0b format.

Agreed

agreed

Jack Caviness

I like to use the passage guide in a narrow window like below, and the change makes it near impossible to tell which resource is which:

Is this a Windows bug? Don't see it in 5.1 Beta 8 Mac

If a Windows bug, please keep it from spreading. This would be a really poor design choice.

tom

It's OK to do this in the Collections section

I just wanted to voice my opnion. I disagree for the same reason for the same reason for the commentaries.

I do understand that collections display more than one result from a book (and that is a good thing). I believe that the resource should be listed first, and the user should be able to expanded to list the various hits within the resource.

Mark Barnes

I do understand that collections display more than one result from a book (and that is a good thing). I believe that the resource should be listed first, and the user should be able to expanded to list the various hits within the resource.

I agree with this, and have said so elsewhere. It would be best if the collections section mimicked a basic search (which is all it is) and provided ranked, By Title and By Count options, rather than just ranked as it is at the moment.,

Andrew Batishko

Thanks for reporting this! In case you are wondering why Logos could have released something so shockingly terrible [;)] read on:

Our intent was to fix the formatting of the Collections section that is available in the Topic Guide. It's supposed to look just like the Collections section that is found in the Passage Guide. It turns out that due to a similarity in the way the results are generated, the Topic Guide's Collections section is really a "rebranded" Commentaries section. We do a similar "rebranding" for the Apparatus and Visualizations sections. Well, that means that fixing up the formatting for the one section changed the formatting for all the other Commentaries sections.

This should be fixed up again for the next release.

JT (alabama24)

Thanks Andrew. [:)]

Mark Barnes

Our intent was to fix the formatting of the Collections section that is available in the Topic Guide.

I've never understood the Collections section in the Topic Guide, for two reasons:

It should give the same results as the definitions section, but it gives far fewer results.*
It has the same name as the Collections section in the PG, but an entirely different function (i.e. it's a lookup, not a search). That's confusing, I think. You'd be better off calling it Definitions.

* For example, on the topic of Resurrection, the collections section misses the articles from AYBD, DPL, DLNT, DNTB, LBD, EDBT and Easton's.

Andrew Batishko

Fortunately, Mike, I just recently finished reworking the results in the Definition and Collections section. Now the Definition section includes more results than it used to (should match the topics list in a basic search result but without the results from concordance resources), while the Collections section contains even more results than that (including those from concordances).

I just did a quick check on the Topic Guide Collections section for Resurrection, and was seeing results for DPL, DLNT, DNTB, LBD, and Easton's. I don't have AYBD in library I'm currently using, but I"m pretty sure that one will show as well.

I don't recall whether or not that change made it into beta 8, but if not it'll be in beta 9 along with (hopefully) some changes to the Collections section in the Sermon Starter Guide that cause it to return many more results that are not just the same as what's found in the Preaching Resources section.

Mark Barnes

Thanks for the response.

It would be helpful if you could you briefly explain the relationship between the Topic section of Basic Search, the Definition section of the Topic Guide, the Collections section of the Topic Guide and how they all relate to the LCV (Logos Controlled Vocabulary). If I've understood things correctly, you're saying that:

If you search for a word/phrase in the LCV, the topic section of basic search lists all the encyclopedia and concordance articles tagged with that word/phrase.
That each entry from LCV can be used in a topic guide.
That the definition section excludes concordances, whilst the collections section includes them.

While you're testing this, you might want to check whether the entry on Resurrection includes entries from the following resources (they're currently missing from the definition section of Topic Guide, but appear in search):

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary
Harpers Bible Dictionary
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times
Nelson's New Illustrate Bible Dictionary

There's also a bug in topics in search whereby some entries are duplicated or triplicated (e.g. Harper-Collins on Resurrection). It might be worth checking this bug hasn't come over into the TG as well.

Dave Hooton

Fortunately, Mike, I just recently finished reworking the results in the Definition and Collections section. Now the Definition section includes more results than it used to (should match the topics list in a basic search result but without the results from concordance resources), while the Collections section contains even more results than that (including those from concordances).

I find it to be entirely artificial that resources I have prioritised for Basic Search topics have been excluded from the Defintions section, including Concordances:

Encylopedias - New Unger's, Eerdman's, (which I had also commented on in Beta 5)
Concordances - Dictionary of Bible Themes, Collins Thesaurus

In fact nothing has changed since Beta 5, so hopefully those claims have yet to be implemented for us beta testers.

The Collections section is/will become next to useless, except as a glorified more> section to the 6 Definitions.

So please rethink the need for a Collections section and allow all my prioritised resources, including Concordances, to be in Definitions with a genuine expansion via more>

tom

Thanks for reporting this! In case you are wondering why Logos could have released something so shockingly terrible

unfortunately, i stopped wondering about this a long time ago.

Brisa Davis

I was staring at my passage guide trying to figure out what I was looking at when I realized that the PG commentaries section no longer just displays the resource title. Now it also displays the section name--is this new in 5.1 or have I just been non-observant?

It even hides the "star", which (although I never use it) shouldn't disappear for proper interface design.

Both of these issues will be fixed in 5.1 Beta 9.