The new Media Browser tool is very useful but am I correct in thinking that it only browses the central Logos collection of resources, not media elements of our own libraries?
If so this is a significant restriction on its utility.
That is correct. Use the Media Search tool for those. (There is some overlap as the Media Search will pull in at least some of the same results as Media Search.)
The new Media Browser tool is very useful but am I correct in thinking that it only browses the central Logos collection of resources, not media elements of our own libraries? That is correct. Use the Media Search tool for those. (There is some overlap as the Media Search will pull in at least some of the same results as Media Search.)
So is this the basic difference between the standard Media Search and the Logos Now Media Browser? I was wondering what the distinction was between the two.
The new Media Browser tool is very useful but am I correct in thinking that it only browses the central Logos collection of resources, not media elements of our own libraries? That is correct. Use the Media Search tool for those. (There is some overlap as the Media Search will pull in at least some of the same results as Media Search.) So is this the basic difference between the standard Media Search and the Logos Now Media Browser? I was wondering what the distinction was between the two.
The media browser lets you choose different options (i.e. type of resource, place or biblical concept at point) to narrow down the resources until you get to a manageable number that you can then choose for, this requires specific tagging of the resources for you to be able to choose the attributes you want which is presumably why legacy resources are not tagged.
It is a cool feature but for the recurring cost that is being asked I do think that Logos should tag existing resources you own so that you do not have to do two different searches using different methodologies to select from all the resources that you have available,
Right now it only browses Logos Media Collections and not media from on-disk resources. We'd like to get it to browse everything (online and on-disk) but we have some technical hurdles to jump first. So, I can't say exactly when, but we're aware of the need.
I'm really pleased that you are working toward this as it would be a great addition . I have confidence your team will figure out the technical issues.
Thank you Eli. It would be great if they were integrated at some point but I know you guys are busy
