[resolved] Prioritity routine has changed within last 4 months

Having discovered a few months ago that Study Bibles were treated as Commentaries in prioritization, I deliberately set Study Bibles ahead of my commentaries. This worked well for me because I usually use collections on subsets in the Guides. However, when I went to test a default layout, I discovered that now only one study bible is treated as a commentary then the parallel list jumps to commentaries. Not cool - or what I want. I understood that the fact they used a Bible index was sufficient to put them in the same priority list.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd ed.: Notes is classified as a "Bible Commentary", not "Bible Notes". In a commentary, "All parallel resources" shows other commentaries.

This has been true for a very long time. Is the problem here that you'd like The Catholic Study Bible to be recategorised as "Bible Notes"?

Mark Barnes

I understood that the fact they used a Bible index was sufficient to put them in the same priority list.

Generally, resources shown in the parallel resource menu if (a) they are of the same resource type, and (b) they share a common milestone/headword.

There is an exception for Ancient Manuscripts/Monographs, but I don't believe there are any other exceptions.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720794#Comment_720794

I won't worry about it either way at the moment - it was simply that the behavior of the lectionary default page had changed which bothered me. But I suspect for consistency, the Catholic Study Bible should be Bible Notes.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720921#Comment_720921

But I suspect for consistency, the Catholic Study Bible should be Bible Notes.

My contention over what should and should not be classified as a "Commentary" did result in a statement in the wiki for Metadata Correction Proposals --> "The Commentary type is broadly defined to include many different kinds of resources that are indexed by Bible verse, while the Bible Notes type is used exclusively for the notes from a Bible (usually study Bible notes)"

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/721053#Comment_721053

My contention over what should and should not be classified as a "Commentary" did result in a statement in the wiki for Metadata Correction Proposals --> "The Commentary type is broadly defined to include many different kinds of resources that are indexed by Bible verse, while the Bible Notes type is used exclusively for the notes from a Bible (usually study Bible notes)"

Your statement does, of course, explain why The New Unger's Bible Handbook is listed as Bible notes. [:P]

Actually the blog entry from Morris Proctor https://blog.logos.com/2015/02/logos-6-study-bibles-in-the-passage-guide/ implies that there has been a change in behavior or that there is an inconsistency in the use of priorities.

Logos needs to define their intent as it is not clear from their practice.

I think of "Bible notes" as notes of definition and explanation attached to a particular Bible translation ripped violently from their native habitat and exhibited without its Bible text habitat. (I'm joking folks)

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/721431#Comment_721431

I think of "Bible notes" as notes of definition and explanation attached to a particular Bible translation ripped violently from their native habitat and exhibited without its Bible text habitat.

Very close[:)] If you read many commentaries you get an expanded translation without having to worry about the bible[:D] Should The Message be classed as a Bible[:)]