How to stop fuzzy search finding Apocryphal books?

I'm really enjoying the fuzzy search - I can finally search for Biblical quotations in Logos rather than google!

I understand some people will want to have results from the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books. But how can I limit a search to just the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament?

In the 'search range' the 'Entire Bible' range is 'Genesis - 4 Macc'. I thought that changing this to 'Old and New Testament (Gen-Rev)' would limit this to the 'Protestant canon' (for want of a better term), but I'm still getting results from Sirach (eg when I search 'camel needle').

I would suggest that at least one of the 'Common Divisions' be changed to include the Protestant Bible, and in the meantime, is there a workaround so I can set a custom range to just get the protocanonical / Hebrew OT and the NT?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Francis

I am not entirely sure of where you encounter the problem (and so what to suggest as solution). You mention searching for biblical quotations (which suggests a Basic search) but then speak of ranges (which suggests a Bible search).

Can you give an example of the search you conducted that produced the undesirable results?

Stephen Steele

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921951#Comment_921951

Yep, Bible search.

Levi Durfey

In my experimenting with this, I discovered that the "search range" has no effect on Fuzzy Search. I narrowed it to one verse "Matthew 1:1," and it still gave me the same results as when the "Entire Bible" is selected.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921986#Comment_921986

That seems like a bug.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921977#Comment_921977

Hmm, confirmed... looks like Fuzzy Bible Search doesn't respect the Reference Range selected (e.g. Genesis-Exodus) or the canon of the Bible you are searching in (e.g. Lexham Hebrew Bible), or the canon of your highest prioritized Bible, and just always gives the broader canon in the text of your highest prioritized Bible(s).

I would think ideally it should respect the reference range selected, and if you are searching All Passages within a single Bible, should return results from that translation, using that canon. So, if I search within the ESV I would get the Protestant Canon, within the RSVCE the Catholic canon, within the Tanakh the Jewish canon, etc. That would imitate the behaviour of a normal Bible search.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921990#Comment_921990

I think that it is understood to be part of what is "fuzzy" about the search. In other words, you are searching for something but are unsure about it, so it gives you broader results.

But I agree that this should pertain to the search terms only, not to parameters.

Andrew Batishko

As you have determined, Fuzzy Bible Search doesn't currently support filtering by the current range. I have created a case to address this lack.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/922009#Comment_922009

[Y]

Pr Edi Giudetti

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/922009#Comment_922009

Hi Andrew, are you aware if this issue has been resolved or responded to?

Like the other gentleman, I am happy for the 'Fuzzy search' to limit itself to the entire Bible if need be, but quite frustrating seeing it extend to sources outside scripture.

Thanks for creating the case.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1015982#Comment_1015982

Unfortunately, I have no information about when or if this issue will be addressed.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1016808#Comment_1016808

Unfortunately, I have no information about when or if this issue will be addressed.

It's been raised again as an issue. Some people don't want to be see Apocryphal books in their fuzzy search. They want to be able to limit the fuzzy search to the 66 Protestant canonical books. It seems to me this is a pretty important thing to be able to do, so that users don't feel there is a subtle bias of Logos trying to steer them to consider those books as equally canonical.

I personally have no problem with them showing up in my fuzzy search, but would like to advocate for those who want that to be a setting in the program.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051508#Comment_1051508

Some people don't want to be see Apocryphal books in their fuzzy search.

The main issue is that it doesn't respect the passage range on the Bible Search, because it is a section within Bible Search! Which conflicts with the fact that it is also part of Basic Search > Everything, so that everything is fuzzy (no Bible options).

My preference is to place Fuzzy in its own Search tab, where it can have its own options. This would avoid issues like implicitly ignoring Bible Search options; having to collapse Fuzzy to avoid getting results; or collapsing other sections to concentrate on the Fuzzy search.

Limiting Fuzzy to any canon then becomes a side issue, because that can be managed by specifying one of the bibles the user has; a passage/reference range would only complicate matters. Results could also be returned in that bible rather than one's preferred bible.

Another issue is that results depend on spelling e.g. judgment vs judgement. Fuzzy should be able to get around that.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051750#Comment_1051750

Another issue is that results depend on spelling e.g. judgment vs judgement. We should be able to get around that.

Hear hear! Google Search deals with that.

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1016808#Comment_1016808

Unfortunately, I have no information about when or if this issue will be addressed.

Could FL comment on when a fix for this bug might get some traction? Would you explain why this is so far down on the priorities list? Is it because it was designed the way it is at present, and isn't actually a bug, thus we are asking for an enhancement and not a bug fix? Just curious because, if it were a bug, one would think it would have been at least acknowledged as being on the list to get resolved. It doesn't appear at present that it's even on list.

Thanks in advance for an update.

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060626#Comment_1060626

I was able to determine the boundaries of the Fuzzy Search on the mobile app this morning. It's not the desk top. But, I was able to create a search boundary for Jeremiah and it worked.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060634#Comment_1060634

I was able to determine the boundaries of the Fuzzy Search on the mobile app this morning. It's not the desk top. But, I was able to create a search boundary for Jeremiah and it worked.

Fascinating - and I can reproduce this.

It's strange as the Fuzzy Search is carried out on Faithlife servers so I didn't expect it to be affected by which client platform was used.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1060635#Comment_1060635

It's strange as the Fuzzy Search is carried out on Faithlife servers so I didn't expect it to be affected by which client platform was used.

Indeed! Alas, it (still) doesn't work on the web app... specifying a range merely makes the results take longer to appear (and changes what appears in "Exact Results").

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/922009#Comment_922009

This problem has been around since 2017, and Andrew created a case for it back then. It is now 2021. How long, O Lord, how long does it take to get Faithlife to prioritize something as obvious as this?

I've created a Feedbear case for people to vote on:

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/make-passages-dropdown-restrict-fuzzy-search-results

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1157583#Comment_1157583

This problem has been around since 2017, and Andrew created a case for it back then. It is now 2021. How long, O Lord, how long does it take to get Faithlife to prioritize something as obvious as this?

I've created a Feedbear case for people to vote on:

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/make-passages-dropdown-restrict-fuzzy-search-results

Convince Bob it needs to happen and it will happen. Otherwise it may never happen in our lifetime if he’s not convinced.

Jeremy Ellis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1157585#Comment_1157585

October 2022 and this is still an issue...

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227030#Comment_1227030

Let's see ... the issue in 2017. Then a followup in 2018. One in 2019. Another in 2020. Plus 2021.

Jeremy, you caught 2022 just in time! Whew! Good work. Now, we're ready for 2023.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic ... but do appreciate your reminder.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227032#Comment_1227032

My suggestion would be to try out Logos/Verbum 10 on or shortly after Tuesday, check to see if it's fixed, and then start a new thread in the new Logos 10 forum that will probably exist by then that begins with BUG: and, after providing appropriate information, links back to this Logos 7 thread.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227041#Comment_1227041

My suggestion would be to try out Logos/Verbum 10 on or shortly after Tuesday, check to see if it's fixed,

Do they update feedbear?

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/make-passages-dropdown-restrict-fuzzy-search-results

Or presumably vote.

Pr Edi Giudetti

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227051#Comment_1227051

I am beginning to be greatly concerned that this is a 'money' issue. If Roman Catholics and subordinate faiths are purchasing Logo's, the motivation to fix this evident issue might be mollified.

Five years on and Logo's now promoting its product to other faiths, this is a genuine concern I would like to have a response to.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227089#Comment_1227089

If Roman Catholics and subordinate faiths are purchasing Logo's

Catholics buy Verbum ... Verbum standard for Roman Catholics, Verbum Eastern rite for most non-Roman rite Catholics, and Verbum Ordinariate for the Anglo-Catholics on the Catholic side. Anglicans and Lutherans have a canon very similar to the Catholic canon. However, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox generally use a larger canon than Roman Catholics; the RSV/NRSV ecumenical canon includes the broader canon of the Eastern Orthodox. I don't understand what you mean by "subordinate faiths."

Five years on and Logo's now promoting its product to other faiths

Huh? They don't even cover the other Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Samaritan, Christianity, Islam, Baháʼí, Druze, Yezidi, Rastafarianism, Mandeaism (?), Manichaeism (?), Babism . . .

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227051#Comment_1227051

Do they update feedbear?

There is usually a lag before feedbear is updated, especially when the testing of the code is not a public beta.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227093#Comment_1227093

They don't even cover the other Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Samaritan, Christianity ...,

Good point.

Regarding Pr Edi Giudetti's post, is it possible that 'Logos' and 'Verbum' are being seen as two separate development products (ergo the concern?).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227104#Comment_1227104

is it possible that 'Logos' and 'Verbum' are being seen as two separate development product

Many things are possible, fewer are probable, and if communication is clear, one hopes only one is actual. I would not contend the latter condition applies.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1227041#Comment_1227041

My suggestion would be to try out Logos/Verbum 10 on or shortly after Tuesday, check to see if it's fixed

This looks like a great suggestion!

This has been fixed in Logos 10