BUG: Not all Fields being shown for LGNTI search

Dave Hooton

These are the fields made available by Basic/Bible and Morph Search:-

These are the Search fields for LGNTI:-

Of particular importance, literal and lexval are not available unless
you do it manually e.g. literal:therefore

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Melissa Snyder

I've reported this. Thanks.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/123043#Comment_123043

This is still a major issue in RC1. I have only 12 search fields for my entire library. Early on the the beta I had perhaps 50 or so.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126229#Comment_126229

I also gave a reminder in a recent bug report & created http://wiki.logos.com/Bug$3a_Fields_shown_in_Search_are_incorrect_or_incomplete

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126229#Comment_126229

This is still a major issue in RC1. I have only 12 search fields for my entire library. Early on the the beta I had perhaps 50 or so.

Yikes! I just realized that this is the case!...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126250#Comment_126250

I see this has been improved in 4.0c RC2. Can I ask why you don't show all available fields for the resources? That was a much more preferable system in my view.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126709#Comment_126709

Can I ask why you don't show all available fields for the resources? That was a much more preferable system in my view.

I also vote for all fields in all resources.

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126724#Comment_126724

I also vote for all fields in all resources.

++[Y]

Melissa Snyder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126709#Comment_126709

I see this has been improved in 4.0c RC2. Can I ask why you don't show all available fields for the resources? That was a much more preferable system in my view.

The textual fields for LGNTI and BDAG were added for 4.0c. This case is still open, though, as it's determined what other relevant fields should be displayed.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126816#Comment_126816

This case is still open, though, as it's determined what other relevant fields should be displayed.

Melissa,

let's go over this one more time; "relevant = whatever we want"

Am I being clear enough? [:O]

Seriously, I appreciate all of your hard work; have a good weekend...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126816#Comment_126816

The textual fields for LGNTI and BDAG were added for 4.0c. This case is still open, though, as it's determined what other relevant fields should be displayed.

What was really useful about the former model is that we were alerted to which fields were available. I appreciate the same information is available in the resource window, but having it in the search was very convenient. I particularly liked the fact that when you changed the resource you were searching, the drop-down updated to contain only the relevant fields.

I appreciate the list could get long, and perhaps you don't want to overwhelm users. If this is the case, can I suggest you have "Common Search Fields", and "Other search fields" in your list.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/126839#Comment_126839

Just wanted to say thank you for adding more fields back into 4.1 beta. It's appreciated!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/149376#Comment_149376

Just wanted to say thank you for adding more fields back into 4.1 beta. It's appreciated!

All 12 are there for LGNTI in Basic Search, which is great. Two are correctly dropped for a Bible Search. Also seems to have cured the bug of the Fields varying when switching between types of Search eg. no longer getting all 12 for a Bible Search.