BUG: User understanding, Faithlife coding and the elusive goal of consistency [at what cost]

MJ. Smith

There is one thread concerning a series of Bible study resource in which one volume of the series was originally (and "rightly") labeled a commentary in which the resource was retagged monograph at user request to match the rest of the series: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/98592/680924.aspx  In doing so the Bible index was removed from the resource.

There is another thread concerning a series of Bible study resources in which one volume of the series is "rightly" tagged a monograph and all other volumes are commentaries. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/102961/711843.aspx#711843. In this case the user believes they should all be monographs.

Conclusion, we, as users, are not always the best source of metadata correction information as we use the terms as commonly used in the vernacular - not as used in the Logos software logic. This issue came up a few years ago with regards to the use of the series field.

Resolution of procedure/knowledge bug:

1. Please provide us with definitions of the various resource types so that we can accurately point users with questions to correct information. Questions most often arise around series or single resources with multiple resource types.
2. Please verify that our metadata change requests make sense and that we know the consequences (primarily what can be linked panels)

Kyle G. Anderson

MJ--this is a good suggestion. I've passed it along to our metadata expert. I was leaning towards updating the metadata correction proposal page so that it includes some sort of FAQ section on notoriously difficult metadata fields.