BUG: XREF inconsistency leads to extreme frustration ... maybe even a temper tantrum?
Using the passage Gen 6:1-8
- The XREF section in the Passage Guide includes no NT references in its 76 entries
- The XREF section in the Explorer Tool includes 84 passages including NT references and therefore is clearly using different rules for its creation.
- 44 passages appear in only one of the two lists.
- I can find no search capability that allows me to find all the XREF's in my Bibles so that I can choose my own selection rules
- Logos is choosing the data to present me rather than simply presenting me with the data in a section that is not Logos curated - that genuinely offends me especially since the choice of Bibles to search for XREF data has already biased the data.
Note: if Logos selects based on number of times the reference occurs (as it does for bold) then the results are skewed to the shorter canon based upon the distribution of the eligible Bible resources. If Logos selects based upon the number of references to be displayed then the results are skewed against the New Testament entries based upon book sequence.
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."
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
The XREF section in the Passage Guide includes no NT references in its 76 entries
I get 86 passages including 18 from the NT!
I'm running Logos - it looks as though you are using Verbum. I wonder if that is making a difference.
EDIT: Or more likely - reflecting on Mark's point at http://community.logos.com/forums/p/84638/593790.aspx#593790 - you have some Bibles with the cross-reference trait which I don't. This would explain the extra OT results you get (see my post below) but doesn't really explain why you aren't getting NT XREFs
MJ. Smith said:The XREF section in the Explorer Tool includes 84 passages including NT references and therefore is clearly using different rules for its creation.
I get exactly the same XREF set in the Explorer Tool as in the PG[:O]
0 -
Graham Criddle said:MJ. Smith said:
The XREF section in the Passage Guide includes no NT references in its 76 entries
I get 86 passages including 18 from the NT!
And looking a little deeper the OT XREFs we are getting are different.
XREFs you get which I don't are - Gen 6:10; 7:6, 11, 13; 8:13; 9:18; 10:1, 21; Num 11:34; 1 Chron 1:4; Esd B 19:30; Wis 14:6; Is 65:20; Jer 51:5; Bar 3:26;
Ones which I get which you don't are - Num 11:32; Neh 9:30;
(There are also some differences in the Psalms but this may be to do with versification differences)
0 -
I have Logos 5 for beta testing (not updated for today's beta yet). I get the same results in Logos 5 and Verbum so the difference is in our resources.
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 -
MJ. Smith said:
the difference is in our resources.
Mark's "xref" list of Bibles is:
- English Standard Version
- International Standard Version, New Testament
- La Biblia de las Américas
- New American Bible: Revised Edition
- Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy
- Reina Valera Revisada (1960)
- The Holman Christian Standard Bible
- The New King James Version
- Today’s New International Version
Thinking about you not getting any NT references I have:
- ESV
- ISV, NT
- HCSB
- NKJV
- TNIV
ESV gives me 3 NT XREFs, HCSB has 7, NKJV has 12 and TNIV has 5
Do you have any of these Bibles? If so, there must be something else preventing you getting the XREFs in the PG
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I can find no search capability that allows me to find all the XREF's in my Bibles so that I can choose my own selection rules
The problem here is that there is no search syntax that allows us to restrict basic searches within particular milestones. It's very frustrating, because Logos obviously has the functionality - it's how this section is created, and of course you can do it in Bible searches. I've asked for it repeatedly, but to no avail.
MJ. Smith said:The XREF section in the Explorer Tool includes 84 passages including NT references and therefore is clearly using different rules for its creation.
I receive identical results for both sections (90 passages) - except the order of the books is different (deutero-canonicals at the end in PG, between the testaments in Explorer). I wonder if the problem is a regression of the earlier bug triggered by the first prioritised Bible. Perhaps you could prioritise the ESV and re-run the two sections (you'll need to close them, not just refresh them).
This is on 5.2b beta 1.
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 -
Mark Barnes said:
Perhaps you could prioritise the ESV and re-run the two sections (you'll need to close them, not just refresh them).
Another thought - are you running your PG directly from a Bible rather than the Guides menu? Perhaps that affects it.
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 -
Graham Criddle said:
Thinking about you not getting any NT references I have:
- ESV
- ISV, NT
- HCSB
- NKJV
- TNIV
I have:
- ESV
- HCSB
- NABRE
- NKJV
I'll sort out what comes from where after I visit Mother.
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 -
-
NB.Mick said:
EDIT: please disregard, user error.
Replying to myself as an update: yep, that's it:
versus
both screenshots: running newest beta of L5, not on Verbum.
The only difference between both guides was changing the bible prioritization, not even a restart of Logos.
/EDIT
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Good work Mick!!
0 -
Thanks,
EDIT: disregard this, was a user error, thanks Mark!
but this is weird: I switched to Verbum = Yes (still with NLT prioritized), restarted Logos - some new resources had arrived - and ran the guide again:
There's one lone NT crossref... /EDIT
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
Is it possible (I vaguley remember another thread with crossreferences and different canons) that your most highly prioritized bible is a LXX?
Only if there is a error in Logos' processing. The LES it the top priority for the Psalms of Solomon only. I'll play with that as a hint ... more research is coming up with other curiosities.
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 -
MJ. Smith said:NB.Mick said:
Is it possible (I vaguley remember another thread with crossreferences and different canons) that your most highly prioritized bible is a LXX?
Only if there is a error in Logos' processing. The LES it the top priority for the Psalms of Solomon only. I'll play with that as a hint ... more research is coming up with other curiosities.
But as an advanced prioritization then it stands further up than the rest in the list....
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
But as an advanced prioritization then it stands further up than the rest in the list....
Correct - all advanced prioritization must appear before the generic prioritization it overrides. And in most cases it behaves as expected. I have just started to find problems with it after how many years? I suspect that a bug was introduced in the last one or two releases.
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 -
NB.Mick said:
Thanks,
but this is weird: I switched to Verbum = Yes (still with NLT prioritized), restarted Logos - some new resources had arrived - and ran the guide again:
....
There's one lone NT crossref...
But whatever this hiccup was - after a restart I just ran the guide again, NLT top bible, Verbum to yes.
I get the exact same results than yesterday with NLT top and Verbum no, so this switch doesn't seem to influence the results (rightly so!)
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:NB.Mick said:
But as an advanced prioritization then it stands further up than the rest in the list....
Correct - all advanced prioritization must appear before the generic prioritization it overrides. And in most cases it behaves as expected. I have just started to find problems with it after how many years? I suspect that a bug was introduced in the last one or two releases.
maybe re-introduced (such as in: regression). After all, it just got fixed "recently" - I dug up our old thread, it's one year ago: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/70664.aspx
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Making the NRSV rather than the LES the first bible did not change the cross-reference results.
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 -
[:-*] NB. Mick: The reason you keep getting different results is because sometimes you're running a PG for Genesis 1:6-8, and sometimes you're running it for Genesis 6:1-8.
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 -
Mark Barnes said:
NB. Mick: The reason you keep getting different results is because sometimes you're running a PG for Genesis 1:6-8, and sometimes you're running it for Genesis 6:1-8. ooops [:$]
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Mark Barnes said:
Perhaps you could prioritise the ESV and re-run the two sections (you'll need to close them, not just refresh them).
Another thought - are you running your PG directly from a Bible rather than the Guides menu? Perhaps that affects it.
I think this question got missed among the noise.
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 -
I'm seeing the following differences between Explorer and PG:
- Explorer includes the Deuterocanonicals, the PG does not.
- Explorer includes Num 13:32-33, the PG only 13:33.
- They must be using different verse maps: Ps 51:5 and Ps 51:7 gives the same popup.
- Explorer writes things like Ps 14:1-3, while the PG writes the same verses as Ps 14:1,2,3. (I prefer the former.[;)])
Logos stable with Verbum set to yes.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I think this question got missed among the noise.
I thought I'd answered it ... I guess it has to be typed and the post button hit[;)] If have run it from the Guides menu, the Lectionary and from the GO box .... I'm trying to document what one gets as a newbie from the front page to see how broadly I am willing to recommend Verbum/Logos at the moment. Shall we say that my daughter-in-law/pastor is an infidel when it comes to software? The letters BW seem to be meaningful in her world.
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 -
Mark Barnes said:
I wonder if the problem is a regression of the earlier bug triggered by the first prioritised Bible.
I'm fairly certain it has. I've made a case for a developer to investigate.
0 -
This is marked as fixed in 5.2b beta 2.
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 -
Mark Barnes said:
This is marked as fixed in 5.2b beta 2.
Indeed, thanks Mark. Forgot to update the forum threads yesterday.
0
