L7 Feature Suggestion: Headers in Prioritization List

I was watching one of John Fallahee's LearnLogos training videos where he created headers for his prioritization list. However, he had to use a workaround to do this by creating empty personal books with titles like === BIBLE === and ===COMMENTARIES === and then adding them to the list.

This seems like a lot of trouble for something that should be an included feature.

So...Faithlife....please add this ability to L7.

Screenshot from John's video:

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Josh

Found the UserVoice: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-6/suggestions/2280424-categories-in-the-prioritization-panel

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833092#Comment_833092

Found the UserVoice: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-6/suggestions/2280424-categories-in-the-prioritization-panel

Related thread => USERVOICE review: Categories in the prioritization panel includes:

My objection to the blog solution and potentially the UserVoice solution is that the priorities are by datatype and, at least for myself, the biggest problems come from books with unexpected glossaries at the end. I made some specific suggestions related to prioritization at SUGGESTION: Logos 7 some doable changes to prioritization.

+1 experience with unexpected glossaries in Bibles (e.g. NLT)

Keep Smiling [:)]

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833110#Comment_833110

Yes, the problem with this “solution” is that it’s not actually how prioritisation works in Logos 6 (nor was intended to be used); you’d probably be better off learning how Logos 6 actually uses the priority list and why it doesn’t come with categories “out of the box”. I haven’t actually watched it, but I Mark Barnes’ video at https://wiki.logos.com/Prioritizing is probably a good one.

That said, we understand that many customers want to prioritise by categories and have that on the list for a potential future reworking of the Prioritisation UI.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833115#Comment_833115

it’s not actually how prioritisation works in Logos 6

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how could that possibly be true? We have always been told to prioritize our resources by categories/types such as Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries, Lexicons etc. If resources are not similar in type (which is why we want to group them together while prioritizing) the parallel resource features wont even work, which is one of several places that benefit from Prioritization.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833156#Comment_833156

it’s not actually how prioritisation works in Logos 6

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how could that possibly be true? We have always been told to prioritize our resources by categories/types such as Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries, Lexicons etc. If resources are not similar in type (which is why we want to group them together while prioritizing) the parallel resource features wont even work, which is one of several places that benefit from Prioritization.

If you try this, you'll see that everything continues to work perfectly fine in the parallel resource feature if you don't have all your resources grouped together by type.

Generally people recommend grouping because it is a useful way to help people keep track of what they have prioritized, not because the system actually requires it.

The application only cares about the relative position in the list between two different resources.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833156#Comment_833156

We have always been told to prioritize our resources by categories/types

Actually Mark Barnes has consistently tried to get users to recognize that this is a "shorthand" that is not always accurate. Most of the forum questions on the "failure of prioritization" are answered by the resource type (what users think) vs. datatype (what application does) distinction. How do I know? Because I asked many of them. [:$]

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833170#Comment_833170

If you try this, you'll see that everything continues to work perfectly fine in the parallel resource feature if you don't have all your resources grouped together by type.

I have tried that, I understand that the features will work in the parallel resource. But how would one prioritize them without seeing them all near each other. They have to be "in order", to reflect that "order" in the Parallel resources list. And if you have a long list of "random" resources in your Prioritization list, it's unlikely that every thing will "accidentally" line up the way they are desired to in the Parallel resources list.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833170#Comment_833170

The application only cares about the relative position in the list between two different resources.

Precisely! And if it is a random list, how would the user specify this

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833178#Comment_833178

the resource type (what users think) vs. datatype (what application does) distinctio

I'll keep that in mind, but nevertheless, I don't see what they mean, by it "not intended" to work that way

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833189#Comment_833189

The application only cares about the relative position in the list between two different resources.

Precisely! And if it is a random list, how would the user specify this

Let's say you current have the ESV open, and you open the parallel resource popup. This popup displays a list of the other Bibles you have. Let's say you own the following Bibles:

ESV
NIV
KJV 1900
NRSV

The order of the list is determined by your prioritization. Let's say your prioritization list looks like this:

KJV 1900
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
NIV

Lets go through each Bible you own:

ESV - This will not be displayed because it's your current resource
NIV - This will be displayed second because it's comes after the KJV 1900 in your prioritization
KJV 1900 - This will be displayed first because it's comes before everything else in your prioritization
NRSV - This will be display third because it isn't listed in your prioritization, and will use the built-in prioritization

The final result in the parallel resources list will be:

KJV 1900
NIV
NRSV

It doesn't matter where stuff is in your prioritization list. If you want NIV to show up before KJV 1900, then drag it to anywhere before KJV 1900. If you want NRSV to show up in between KJV 1900 and NIV, then drag it into anywhere between those two resources.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833197#Comment_833197

It doesn't matter where stuff is in your prioritization list...

drag it into anywhere between those two resources.

Quote

I understand that completely, but once you have to do this for your top 5 lexicons, commentaries (further subdivisions of commentaries), bibles, dictionaries (of different types), etc. you've got quite a situation to navigate through, And they are most likely gonna end up looking like they are "in order" minus headings (unless you do John's trick) And if you've got a long list, its unfriendly to have to scroll around looking for the right type of resources

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833191#Comment_833191

by it "not intended" to work that way

They mean that it works on datatypes indexed which may be more than 1 in a particular resource for example the Catechism of the Catholic Church is indexed both by the CCC reference number AND glossary headwords so where I put it affects both the catechism links and the links to the words in the glossary. The headings you want, which I used for some time, organize the list by resource type not datatypes so they fail to recognize the effect of my prioritization of the Catechism on dictionary lookups and only show the effect on the catechism links.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833204#Comment_833204

I understand that completely, but once you have to do this for your top 5 lexicons, commentaries (further subdivisions of commentaries), bibles, dictionaries (of different types), etc. you've got quite a situation to navigate through, And they are most likely gonna end up looking like they are "in order" minus headings (unless you do John's trick) And if you've got a long list, its unfriendly to have to scroll around looking for the right type of resources

Great, I'm glad you were already clear on that. My response was intended to be a reply to the following, which sounded like you weren't clear on how this works:

it’s not actually how prioritisation works in Logos 6

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how could that possibly be true? We have always been told to prioritize our resources by categories/types such as Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries, Lexicons etc. If resources are not similar in type (which is why we want to group them together while prioritizing) the parallel resource features wont even work, which is one of several places that benefit from Prioritization.

We do understand that a better means for organizing your prioritization list is desired. As Bradley indicated in his comment...

That said, we understand that many customers want to prioritise by categories and have that on the list for a potential future reworking of the Prioritisation UI.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833213#Comment_833213

it works on datatypes indexed which may be more than 1 in a particular resource

Ok, I'm following you guys. thanks

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833236#Comment_833236

We do understand that a better means for organizing your prioritization list is desired

Thanks for looking into this Andrew and Bradley, we appreciate it. I think I understand the difference now

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833170#Comment_833170

Generally people recommend grouping because it is a useful way to help people keep track of what they have prioritized, not because the system actually requires it.

This is exactly why we need a visual system to have users (even just superficially) create labels/headers/categories for the various sections of prioritized resource types. I'm not concerned with how the technology works behind the scenes, I just care about my user experience.

Also, this is important to me because I prioritize more than just my top 5 resources per resource type, because when I expand my resource list down I still only want to see resources I care about (and in the order I care about). This is mostly true for commentaries. I currently have over 40 commentary series on my list. I group them by type too...background commentaries, single-volume, exegetical, application, etc.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833465#Comment_833465

This is exactly why we need a visual system to have users (even just superficially) create labels/headers/categories for the various sections of prioritized resource types.

While I agree that we need a clear visual system, you have ignore the fact that we do NOT prioritize resource types ...we DO prioritize resources within a datatype. That is not a matter of "how the technology works behind the scenes" it is how the technology works both as the user view and behind the scenes. The failure to understand this accounts for nearly all the "prioritization bug" reports/questions in the forums.

And no, I don't support the current system but I also know that is discussions with another MVP defining a better system is a bit of a bear.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833471#Comment_833471

While I agree that we need a clear visual system, you have ignore the fact that we do NOT prioritize resource types ...we DO prioritize resources within a datatype.

This has been made clear by the discussion at hand, but almost every tutorial I have ever seen on prioritization has users group resources by type. Our minds like this visual arrangement. It helps us keep track of what is prioritized. I am okay with a superficial system in place. John from LearnLogos has a interesting workaround (prioritizing blank PBs with resource type names), but the average user would never come to this solution on their own. I honestly don't see how a superficial system would be difficult for FL to implement. I'm not asking them to change how the technology works.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833178#Comment_833178

Actually Mark Barnes has consistently tried to get users to recognize that this is a "shorthand" that is not always accurate.

Too true. Here's an example that might still be helpful: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/113920/754472.aspx#754472

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833478#Comment_833478

I'm not asking them to change how the technology works.

I realize that. But as a person who answers many forum posts, I don't want to be in the position of saying "I know Logos put them there - but they knew they didn't work and you're supposed to know they don't really work and pretend that they do except when they don't. The hint that you mention was also in the forums, posted by Rosie IIRC; I think Morris may also have promoted it. I'm more comfortable saying trainers used a shortcut that works for many rather than Logos promoted a shortcut that only works for some.