Bug/Bad Design: Passage Guide commentary section returning "false" hits.

I can understand how this happens, but with commentaries that don't cover every verse of the Bible, they shouldn't appear when they don't cover the verse (or range) from the guide. In the screenshot, I've highlighted in green what is the expected/desired behavior and in red what is the buggy behavior. In the textual commentaries sub-section of the textual variants section, it behaves as expected.

Note of clarification: This is not only true of textual commentaries, it occurs across the board as far as I can tell.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

This is not only true of textual commentaries, it occurs across the board as far as I can tell.

Commentaries are aligned to the nearest milestone, therefore it will occur for "Textual" commentaries as well i.e. all type:bible-commentary in Commentaries sections (also in Parallel Resource sets, Link sets). The Textual Variants section can treat them more precisely.

Reuben Helmuth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/970375#Comment_970375

Commentaries are aligned to the nearest milestone

Thanks, Dave,

My contention is not with the alignment per se. If I understand correctly (I'm a little foggy on the details right now), the guide is finding commentaries which "intersect" with the reference. My argument is that in the example given, the Lexham Textual Notes should not "claim" to cover Gen-Rev. Instead, the covered range should be should be interrupted whenever a verse isn't covered. I realize that this would mean that, for the most part, the covered portions would be a single verse.

If a commentary covers Mat 5:1-15 and 5:20-48, but does not treat verses 16-19, an intersection should not be found if I run the guide on Matt 5:17. The idea of the guides is to find relevant resources in my library and, in this instance, it has failed its intended purpose.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/970435#Comment_970435

I don’t disagreei with what you are saying but I won’t presume to answer for the Logos developers.

What I would ask is are there any commentaries you consider as being textual that are not being included In the textual variants section of the guide? If not curious to understand why you then are duplicating this section with your own custom section in the guide? As I said simply curious, we all do different things with guides because they are customisable and so wanted to understand why you do it this way. Or have you just done it this way to illustrate your point?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

In the textual commentaries sub-section of the textual variants section, it behaves as expected.

Using Logos 7.14 RC 2, replicated Textual Variants section showing results correctly for a verse while Commentaries section showed verse is within indexed range (while not filtering out resources that lack specified verse).

FYI: planning to remove mytag:Commentary-Textual section from My Passage Guide since Textual Variants works better. Also learned Apparatus has Mark 5:2 variants that lack comment in Textual Commentaries.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Reuben Helmuth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/970686#Comment_970686

curious to understand why you then are duplicating this section with your own custom section in the guide?

This illustrated my point in that all shown commentaries were "false hits" but, if it would work as expected, I would like to keep my custom section and keep it expanded simply as a "pop up alert" where there are significant textual variants. Keeping the textual variants section expanded (even with all other sub-sections collapsed) simply takes up too much room and clutters up the guide (in the case that I'm only wanting to see "significant" variants).

In a different section (published 1750-1950), my point remains... on Matt 3:13, out of 12 commentaries available in the section, 4 were false hits (3 out of the first 7!). This is simply time-wasting and/or making it look like my library has more extensive coverage than it really has.

MJ. Smith

I think I'm missing something Rueben. In the Textual Variants section you are accessing a Logos implied collection. In the Commentaries section you are accessing a user defined collection. Why should I assume matching results?

Reuben Helmuth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/970744#Comment_970744

Why should I assume matching results?

Because the user-defined collection includes the same resources as the Logos collection. Am I misunderstanding your question?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/970435#Comment_970435

My contention is not with the alignment per se. If I understand correctly (I'm a little foggy on the details right now), the guide is finding commentaries which "intersect" with the reference

An 'intersection' Search of Jn 5.1 <Bible ~Jn 5:1> would not match Jn 5.2 but it would match Jn 5:1-10. Its strict parameter is that results cannot cross chapter boundaries, so it would not match Jn 5:1-6:1. The Commentaries section is not doing an intersection Search, though, unlike the Collections section**. It is searching for appropriate milestones and it chooses to match anything with the same chapter, irrespective of verse intersections. You can see this with Ro 2:19, where the Lexham resource is not included but the Textual Commentary is included without a match on the verse. The Textual Variants section has a more precise criteria for milestone matches.

The 'alignment' I referred to is the way that commentaries in a link set will manage missing verses or ranges i.e. Jn 5.2 in Lexham will align with Jn 5.1 in Textual Commentary.

** Collections section illustrates that different sections can produce different results with the same collection.