Bug: Bible Outline Browser and BE Commentary Display
I'm calling this a bug because it's bugging me even though the developers may argue it is performing as designed and this is anomaly caused the way the structure of the outline.
As a result of the highlighted level in the outline the verses for Eph 3:1 and and 14-21 do not actually show up in the display of the bible text.
While this highlighted sub level does exist in the outline, when you go to the actual commentary it is not even mentioned, the text is broken up very differently. If at all possible I'd prefer to see this outline level in the parenthesis not included in the outline so that the text displays correctly in the browser. I assume that would require removing some internal tagging that has been applied to that line of text in the book. I don't' see anything would be lost given the author doesn't even use this breakdown in his commentary. It would seem the simplest solution to the issue.
Comments
-
Hi DoC
Disciple of Christ (doc) said:While this highlighted sub level does exist in the outline, when you go to the actual commentary it is not even mentioned, the text is broken up very differently
This is quite confusing - as the outline information presented in the interactive tool will be based on the "outline" section in the resource. When the commentary doesn't follow that it will appear strange.
However, I think the issue regarding not displaying the text is due to a lack of tagging. The white spaces in the screenshot below show that 3:1 and 3:14-21 haven't been tagged correctly. This, I think, explains what you are seeing
If this tagging were updated then you should see the text in the tool (even though not in the same way as the body of the commentary)
This issue has been seen in a number of outlines and, I believe, Faithlife are working on updating them.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
However, I think the issue regarding not displaying the text is due to a lack of tagging. The white spaces in the screenshot below show that 3:1 and 3:14-21 haven't been tagged correctly. This, I think, explains what you are seeing.
If this tagging were updated then you should see the text in the tool (even though not in the same way as the body of the commentary)
Graham appreciate your response and for your additional screen shot it highlights the issue. The problem however is at the lowest level of this outline there is nothing to tag for 3:1 and 14-21 as these verses are left out of the outline at that level and hence the anomaly. As a result Logos would need to make an editorial decision - something they rightly don't like to do - but needs to be done in these rare scenarios (as you point out there are others) if they are to make tools like these work smoothly with what the text presents.
Your suggestion would lead Logos make an editorial decision to artificially insert into the outline something that is not there in the first place ie. a reference to 3:1 and 14-21 at that level of the outline. Hence my suggestion of an editorial decision which is to simply untag the lowest level of this outline. This level seemingly adding nothing - to me it comes across as an off the cuff comment about Paul's thought patterns but it has no real significance in terms of the way the author has chosen to comment on the text in light of the purpose of his commentary. In approaching this way Logos would only be making a decision about the depth of information from the outline that the tool provides rather than changing the outline by adding something to it - they would need to add something into the text of the resource so it could be tagged and to my understanding that is something they don't do, don't have permission to do and don't' desire to do and rightly on all counts - but to leave out that particular level of the outline I don't think would be crossing that boundary since it's a choice about what their tool displays based on what they tag.
I don't expect the outline to follow the text of the commentary discussion as outlines are sometimes written for different purposes - some resources offer multiple outlines but simply was using that to show that leaving that one level - which is only one line - would have no real impact of following the commentary discussion in this instance.
0
