LOGOS - I Love the changes made in the Topics Section

Stein Dahl

I don't know when this was actually implemented, but I absolutely love what you guys (Logos) have done with the Topics section in the Passage and Exegetical Guides.  It's great!  I really like that you can view the Topics as a collapsible List, or by Tag (like in L3), or as the Cloud.

Now if this same thing could be applied to the Interesting Words section (which I think should be renamed to Important Words), and also to general search results!

It's fantastic to have the ability to view your results in multiple ways.

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention that this is in reference to version 4.0c beta 2. [:)]

Rich DeRuiter

I don't know when this was actually implemented, but I absolutely love what you guys (Logos) have done with the Topics section in the Passage and Exegetical Guides.  It's great!  I really like that you can view the Topics as a collapsible List, or by Tag (like in L3), or as the Cloud.

Now if this same thing could be applied to the Interesting Words section (which I think should be renamed to Important Words), and also to general search results!

It's fantastic to have the ability to view your results in multiple ways.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that this is in reference to version 4.0c beta 2.

I also like having a choice about how to view. I hadn't even looked at it until you mentioned the change.

However, the topics are still generated from works that reference the text, rather than arising out of the Bible passage. For me, this section is still not as helpful as it could be.

I just ran this on the passage I'm preaching on tomorrow (John 20:1-18). Why is "Codex Washingtonensis" in there? Since I know how this part of the guide works, I do actually know how it got there. But it has nothing to do with what John is saying in the passage itself. So why is this a topic I'd be interested in when studying this passage. Clicking that topic shows no relation whatsoever to the passage. But the Gospel of John is mentioned once in a brief article about this significant codex. And that's only one obvious example of irrelevant data that this report produces.

Anyway, the format is better, but the output is still not very reliable (IMHO).