Resource error? - rampant

MJ. Smith

So personal letters are now "Commentary"?

So biography is "Commentary"?

So Genesis is covered by "Commentary" rather than "Bible Commentary"? ... what can are you using ...

And this is from the new Ancient Christian Writers series so it isn't a long standing error.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Everett Headley

I am convinced that there is no QA department at Logos, that we the end users are required to be so by using the "Report Typo" feature.

Robert

After about 18 months with the platform, and speaking as a user now heavily invested, I am persuaded that the greatest current need for our beloved Logos/ Faithlife, after a period of obviously rapid growth, is a season of retrenchment and Quality Control regarding the resources themselves. Rationale to follow when time allows. Grace and peace. <><

Robert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793096#Comment_793096

References to Logos are intended to include Verbum and Noet also.

With respect for Bob and desire for Faithlife's success: in my opinion, Faithlife should concentrate more on the resources themselves for a season, to help the Logos program better fulfill its mission. Without the features that make Logos resources more valuable than e-books, the Logos program is rather limited. Consider the number of forum subjects that reflect resource-level problems.

We all own e-readers; these have some value. But for research, the value-added difference between an e-book and a Logos resource (along with a very good program in which to search and use them) is what Logos offered me 18 months ago. Indeed, here is the approximate statement that concludes the description of virtually every Logos resource:

In the Logos edition, ________ is enhanced by amazing functionality. Fully integrated into your digital library, Scripture citations link directly to English translations, and important terms link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Perform powerful searches to find exactly what you’re looking for.

Reading this when I first came to Logos 5 (from Libronix 3.1), I wondered at the amount of work that would go into digital conversion (especially of images), proofreading, and Logos tagging of even a small book. For a large, complex resource, the time and cost of 'adding Logos value' was almost beyond my comprehension. How could all that work be done, word by word, in a million-word resource, especially one with images? However, during my ownership of the platform, two things have begun to explain this: 1) conversion, proofreading, and tagging work is often outsourced; and 2) the degree of conversion accuracy, 'integration' and 'functionality' varies greatly from resource to resource. The reason for 2) may be 1), but the business process used is neither known nor material to the subject. Since the Logos value proposition does not vary from one resource to another, neither should the level of accuracy in conversion, tagging, proofreading, etc. The goal should be simple: however the work is done, errors in a file that has gone through the Logos value-added process should be few.

Occasionally a Faithlife representative states in a forum post that an error 'was in the file we were given'. But with respect, isn't that the definition of a Vyrso resource? No matter how powerful the software platform, for research the resources themselves (especially public domain texts, available free if desired only as an e-book) must be optimized and complete. I view my large investment made in Logos as good stewardship, as long as the program itself is very good (it is) and the resources are specialized and built for research. Please do whatever it takes to balance program development with the need for fully optimized, specialized and accurate resources. Thanks, and God bless.

Grace and peace. <><

Colin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794430#Comment_794430

Robert: I think your message needs to be considered carefully by Faithlife (by Bob). I have been a user of logos since libronix days and have reported numerous typos. Only recently have I started following some of the threads on the forums and become aware of many more issues than those I experienced myself. Although some complaints are of a minor nature, and some just need a little patience or skill on the part of the user, others have been more serious. Of late even MVPs have been complaining about problems with tagging and labels and expressing disquiet at staffing issues. Meanwhile I have seen Logos pushing ahead with new features (debuted in logos now), bringing more books into publication, and pursuing new markets. To some degree all of these advances are to the detriment of existing resources and current customers.

I too believe that Faithlife needs to take time to ensure that the resources now on offer are optimised and accurate.

In addition, frequently used features like the Passage Guide surely need attention. The recent thread on topic searching in journals brought to light a serious problem with the intuitive use of the software. I had a similar issue last week as I studied Mark 2:23-28 for a sermon using passage guide. I have the Master Journal Bundle and received only a few hits for that passage in the journals section. I had to use my journal collection and perform a separate search to find the relevant articles in my library.

Finally, I think Faithlife needs to improve Customer Services so that the generic email address given for that department returns the customer with more than 'we hope to respond soon'. While there are no doubt some exemplary staff in that department (e.g. Carla has served me well in the past) we are not given the opportunity to contact individuals directly in order to ensure that our emails get answered.

I regret posting negatively about software I have come to love and depend on but wanted to add to your comments Robert as what you said is along the lines of what I have been thinking for a while.

Colin

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794444#Comment_794444

As the MVP who is also the OP in this thread, I'd like to point out a few things:

the staff that handles resource production/QA is different personnel than that which creates new features. The only times that new features affect the production/QA staff is (a) when new features require new tagging or (b) new features make old missing/erroneous tagging more obvious
some user tagging expectations are unrealistic as they are based on a misunderstanding of how tagging is done. The TIP of the day series on tagging (incomplete) was intended partially to address this issue by teaching how tagging is often achieved by mapping to a single mapped resource rather than each resource being individually tagged.
at least one MVP (me) pushes in areas of tagging where the tagging priorities of the liturgical churches does not match current/previous Logos prioritization rules for updating resource tagging.
many of the systematic tagging errors reported are as a result of timing between when the resource entered into the production stream and when particular tagging became active. Logos has chosen generally to release the resource with incomplete tagging rather than making us wait while it cycles through an update cycle - a philosophy one may or may not agree with but it is simply a business decision that needs to be communicated.

I believe that the effective way to approach the problem is to be vocal about which tagging and which resources you would like to see Faithlife focus their resources on. An alternative path I hope to see more of is where Faithlife allows us to provide the labels/tags that they do not - community tags and sermon labels. This approach allows us to tag resources more thoroughly than Faithlife intends to AND to get the functionality as if they were "officially" tagged. My current wish is to be able to label Outlines to appear in the Passage Guide as my personal favorites are not tagged by Faithlife and many they tag I find unhelpful.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794453#Comment_794453

To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer...

When I was a new to Logos, I was excited at how Logos had free resource updates to fix typos that do exist. But then I started making notes of typos that I reported, and checking to see if they were fixed when the resource was next updated. I found that the system sounds much better in theory than it always is in practice.

I understand that we will never have the perfection of tagging we wish we would have. And errors will always be there. But there are some consistent problems with tagging. MJ pointed out some odd, unexpected metadata above. Myself I was a bit surprised that the 2nd edition of the IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels was not listed as having any series by default...

But I have been more frustrated with tagging of extra-biblical literature. I must say that Logos has improved quite a bit at how things are displayed in the K-W Book of Concord than it was a few years ago, and now have a consistent way of tagging the Augsburg Confession. As a Lutheran, this is important for me. But I still grown when often references to the Augsburg Confession are tagged as references to the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. I know they sound sort of similar. But they are different documents.

Likewise, many similar sounding patristic documents are regularly confused. I have noticed this (and reported as typos) many similar sounding mistags to St. Augustine.

I would like to say that they are getting better. And for old resources that are updated, they do get better slowly. But there is all the new stuff... As Logos expands their offerings, this can threaten to be unmanageable.

Robert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794453#Comment_794453

An alternative path I hope to see more of is where Faithlife allows us to provide the labels/tags that they do not - community tags and sermon labels. This approach allows us to tag resources more thoroughly than Faithlife intends to AND to get the functionality as if they were "officially" tagged. My current wish is to be able to label Outlines to appear in the Passage Guide as my personal favorites are not tagged by Faithlife and many they tag I find unhelpful.

MJ, thank you for the clarification, and for all the effort you have expended as an MVP on these matters. This is important, if the software is to do what it is built to do. The fully optimized resources are the fuel that power the software 'engine'.

I am persuaded that your summary is the most vital comment of all. It would be an absolute WIN-WIN for Faithlife to allow further community labeling/ tagging where they cannot, or do not wish to. Indeed, by so doing FL would capture (and wisely, wholesomely leverage) the time, passion, and energy of its user community. Dear Bob and Faithlife, we volunteer! [Y]

Robert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794464#Comment_794464

Likewise, many similar sounding patristic documents are regularly confused. I have noticed this (and reported as typos) many similar sounding mistags to St. Augustine.

Ken's statement raises to an important question, and further highlights the benefit of expanded input from the Faithlife user community in optimizing Logos resources. By definition, to create the 'Logos edition' of a book, one needs to know what it is and what else correlates to it in its field. If such knowledge is lacking, the result will be incomplete and/or incorrect. Example: I would be poor at Logos-style optimization of a quilting book. Why? I know little or nothing about quilting. On the other hand, I would be competent, perhaps excellent, at optimizing most Logos resources. Why? I have studied their subjects and texts carefully, and at length. So here is the important question: do those tagging/ labeling/ optimizing Logos resources know the Bible, theology, languages, church history, patristics, extra-biblical literature and much more, well enough to clearly understand what they are doing? Again, I have no idea; but I do know that a great many in the Faithlife user community, do. [Y]

Grace and peace. <><

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794791#Comment_794791

So here is the important question: do those tagging/ labeling/ optimizing Logos resources know the Bible, theology, languages, church history, patristics, extra-biblical literature and much more, well enough to clearly understand what they are doing?

I have confidence in the head of the data curation department.

Robert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794794#Comment_794794

I have confidence in the head of the data curation department.

MJ, thank you - that is great to know. Also, to know the position exists gives insight into Faithlife's business structure. Head of Data Curation for Faithlife would certainly be an engaging and challenging daily calling. May the Lord bless his or her work, and all those who collaborate in what must be a complex enterprise.

Grace and peace. <><

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794464#Comment_794464

But I have been more frustrated with tagging of extra-biblical literature. I must say that Logos has improved quite a bit at how things are displayed in the K-W Book of Concord than it was a few years ago, and now have a consistent way of tagging the Augsburg Confession. As a Lutheran, this is important for me. But I still grown when often references to the Augsburg Confession are tagged as references to the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. I know they sound sort of similar. But they are different documents.

Likewise, many similar sounding patristic documents are regularly confused. I have noticed this (and reported as typos) many similar sounding mistags to St. Augustine.

Some of Augustine's works ARE tricky. I had a number of issues creating some of his data types (especially the various books on Genesis) because they're so similar sounding.

Please let us (specifically ... me) know when cases like this arrive. I know there have been cases of confusion--especially your Augsburg documents--in the past. We have special documentation and training in place that spells out how to differentiate the two. I need to know if it is still occurring. Knowing where mis-tags are happening helps us create solutions to eliminate or minimize the risk of this happening. Some times this is a training piece, other times there are tooling components that can be updated that allow us to better predict how a reference should be tagged.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/795000#Comment_795000

Kyle, I still waiting for a response to the original post ... the immediate problem.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/795035#Comment_795035

Kyle, I still waiting for a response to the original post ... the immediate problem.

You're right. I didn't mention that. The resource types have already been updated.