Third alternative - my memory is failing. IIRC the Compare Text function used to give me 5 Bibles when I selected "Top Bibles". Now I am only getting 2 despite having 6 prioritized.
I got 5 yesterday!
can you post a screenshot?
Is it possible that you have a custom collection named "Top Bibles" (that is interfering with the built-in Top Bibles collection)?
No, but I was comparing non-Bible texts to answer a forum question immediately before I noticed the problem.
Martha
Is this still an issue?
No, even with the new beta I am only getting two Bibles.
What happens if you remove advanced prioritization?
I'm not able to reproduce, so I'd suspect something in advanced prioritization is causing problems also.
Given the number, that is not practical but I'll try placing the straight prioritization above them to "disable" them.
That may be true but the behavior changed at a time I was not manipulating advance prioritizations - just playing with the highest ranked Bible.
What happens if you remove advanced prioritization? Given the number, that is not practical but I'll try placing the straight prioritization above them to "disable" them.
For what it's worth, I set up the prioritization (+advanced) as in your screenshot above and it's working correctly for me. Are there others higher in the chain that could be affecting these? For example, it's odd that the NRSV shows in your Top Bibles but it isn't in your screenshot.
My priorities run several pages and unfortunately those that are specific to a specific commentary aren't really captured in a screen shot as only the resource title not the series to which it belongs shows.
So I move the primary prioritization to the top - everything belong applies to a specific resource. That gives me as the top priorities:
This improves my results in top Bibles to include 3 bibles ... it appears that Top Bibles doesn't bypass priorities for am irrelevant text or for a resource that does not include the text. Which may also explain why I had to put Psalms of Solomon and Enoch where I did ... otherwise they weren't treated as findable in Bibles.
What I want my prioritization to do is:
That sounds like reasonable expectations to me although I know Logos didn't really plan for 3.
What I want my prioritization to do is: access the broadest canon my library supports prioritize Bibles for lectionaries that are permissible for us in the church sponsoring the lectionary prioritize the Bible which a commentary uses as its primary translation when specified by the author; sometimes this is multiple versions but priorities are so tedious to build that I ignore that my personal choice of Bibles to prioritize as default - which varies depending upon what I am doing - liturgical, Bible study, ecumenical Bible study or devotional reading. That sounds like reasonable expectations to me although I know Logos didn't really plan for 3.
Lectionaries are like a dog whistle to me--they elicit no reaction from me at all--but they obviously mean a great deal to you. I don't really have interest in any of these, ironically enough, except for 3. As you say, Logos doesn't seem to get the annoyance, but when a commentary or other resource specifically states that it is discussing the wording of a specific translation and then I hover over the link to see what that translation says, only to see the wording of my preferred NASB, the irritation claws at me. Since I brought this up about a year or so ago, and was given an explanation as to why this happens (which may be rooted in architectural facts but provided no sense of satisfaction), I understand there may be "reasons" for this disjointed condition, but I am still bugged by it.
translation
A bit of additional information:
1. I moved the LES for Psalms of Solomon to below NET
2. Entering Psalm of Solomon 2 in the Go box correctly brought up the standard layout with data
3. Opening Text Comparison defaulted to the LXX group with 5 Bibles
4. Switched Text Comparison to Top Bibles and got zero Bibles
Clearly the problem is with the definition of Top Bibles and its relationship to advanced priorities and incomplete biblical canons.
====================================================================================================
Okay I have proved that "Top Bibles" ignores whether or not a book occurs in the Bible and ignores any advanced priorities. With the following order: NRSV, NABRE, NJB, NEB, NET, LES ... when I do a Text Comparison on the Prayer of Manasseh on Top Bibles I get the NRSV and the NEB but not the LES,
Changing the order to NRSV, LES, NABRE, NJB, NEB, NET ... when I do the same test I get the NRSV, LES and NEB; If I change to John 1:1 using the same priority sequence I get NRSV, NABRE, NJB, NEB i.e. only 4 Bibles because the LES is ignored. If I apply LES only to the range Psalms of Solomon-odes, it is still chosen if I enter Genesis 1:1.
Obviously, this implies that Faithlife must immediately add the broadest available set of apocrypha possible for each translation!! [:D]
More seriously, this presents a serious limitation to the usability of "Top Bibles" to anyone preferring an OT only translation (JPS, LXX) or a NT only edition. And it appears to override the rules for determining priority making it very difficult to determine what priorities should be and where they are going awry.
EDIT: Deleted - I need to follow this when I can access a desktop.
it appears that Top Bibles doesn't bypass priorities for am irrelevant text or for a resource that does not include the text.
Yes. Top Bibles are the first five bibles you have prioritized, irrespective of advanced prioritization; which is only effective for a look-up (e.g. on the Context menu). So if Acts 1:1 is in 3 of them, that is all you will see in TC. So there isn't a bug with Top Bibles.
If you want to see 5 bibles all the time you can create a collection but it does not present bibles (in TC) in order of prioritization, as with Top Bibles.
What I want my prioritization to do is: ...
This is separate to the issue you raised
So there isn't a bug with Top Bibles.
That's what I concluded as well. Dave succinctly explains why.
It is not a bug in the sense that it is by design but it does render it (a) useless and (b) inconsistent with the basic concepts of prioritization. Thus it is not a bug it, it is ill-conceived.
Martha,
There is a suggestion for Top Bibles to come out of this and it might be best in a new thread, with new title.
We had this exact conversation two years ago! https://community.logos.com/forums/p/70608/492291.aspx#492291
about memory caches...[:D]
