DATA BUG? SUGGESTION? VENTING? ALL OF THE PRECEDING? cases of uncertain identification of persons

I have been working with Biblical Persons for a couple of weeks now. What I have found to be most annoying is when I run into apparent coding errors that are "the official word not errors" to Faithlife. It is not that Faithlife is wrong - it is that the issue is unsettled and they are taking their best shot and running with it. Which seems reasonable until I am working with a resource that takes the other position ... which if I believe, indicates a coding error. Rather than wasting my time -- often significant chunks of time -- I want the Factbook to indicate disputed issues such as the gender of a person or whether 1-2 people are referred. Two examples of the latter which have wasted my time today:

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sean Boisen

1 Chr 7:14 lists the sons of Manasseh: so our annotation of 1 Chr 7:18 as https://ref.ly/logos4/Factbook?ref=bk.%23Abiezer.1 certainly seems defensible.

While i'm sympathetic to the problem of different resources taking different positions, it's never been our intention (yet) to try to represent all possible perspectives: that's a much larger task. I'm not ruling it out as a future enhancement, but it's not currently at the top of our priority list, given all the other kinds of curation we'd like to do.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/989558#Comment_989558

I'm coming at it from the point of view of one teaching inquiry classes and ongoing initial faith formation for recent converts. If I encourage the use of Logos, I don't wish to end up using class time to explain the Logos data. On the other hand, I understand the additional work aspect. I certainly don't want FL going back to find this sort of thing - I'm more inclined to a user-input solution with either Logos curating a user-added information section or a user notes on Factbook entries capability.

HansK

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/989569#Comment_989569

I'm more inclined to a user-input solution with either Logos curating a user-added information section or a user notes on Factbook entries capability.

Great suggestion! I often encounter similar problems with Factbook and the (subjective? confessional??) tagging. Your suggestion can make the Factbook (and more broadly: the tagging) much better.

Perhaps FL can open a (closed) group for those interested in participating in the tagging etc.