I have included a graphic and cant remember the terminology to click in the passage guide to go back to the passage you were using in your main open bible.
I think it was in "My Content" but that is just a blank section on my passage guide window.
Here is an example. I used this so much and now, poof, gone.
Your Romans 1:8 section, containing Title & Description, is missing from Logos 8 as well as Notes, because guides for a specific passage are no longer saved (on the RHS of the Logos 7 Guides menu). Romans 1:8 is a link you could use to open your preferred bible.
The My Content section will be blank ("no results") if the passage is not found in any of your documents. Note that it has been renamed Your Content for v 8.2.
Well ain't that just dandy. Thing I clicked on the most is deprecated. Awesome.
More than deprecated - actually "retired". I think Faithlife are finding that their stats for "usage" do not indicate what functions/features people depend upon.
How do I quickly return to the passage I am currently studying when commentary links and others change my default bible tab?
Let me restate what I think your question relates to, in order to make sure I understand it correctly.
You have a bible open to a passage you are studying (e.g. John 3:16)
In a commentary or some other tool or resource, you click a different reference link. (e.g. Romans 10:13)
You bible is now set to the new reference.
If that is what your asking there are a couple of different ways to quickly return, and one way to prevent it from changing at all
You can use one of two tools in the bible pane
You can open a second occurrence of your preferred bible and set it to Send Hyperlinks Here
In my study layouts I normally have two occurrences of my preferred bible open for that purpose.
Great idea about open links here! Thats the bomb. The history often doesnt contain the passage I am in especially when I open logos and its on the passage already. Thanks for the response Fred!
I have been telling FL and all their previous name iterations that relying upon usage statistics to depreciate features is a bad idea. People do turn off the sending of this sort of data to software vendors. The statistics are not a true indication of usage and so what if only 5% of people use that feature. It is important to that 5% of your user base and their workflow.
Agreed D2. I used it every single time. The open links in this window is gonna help a lot, but weird to find things happening without warning at times.
I have been telling FL and all their previous name iterations that relying upon usage statistics to depreciate features is a bad idea.
I take a slightly different tack. If the statistics for usage is low is it because:
You note that very few of these justify the removal of the feature.
Along with the notes on each individual section which I used to track status. FL made the decision to not actually have a "saved status/document" associated with a Guide. I was one of a handful of beta testers less than enthusiastic about the change. I do understand the infrastructure arguments that led to the demise of the feature; that doesn't mean that the solution taken was the only or the best solution to the issues.
I have been telling FL and all their previous name iterations that relying upon usage statistics to depreciate features is a bad idea. I take a slightly different tack. If the statistics for usage is low is it because: users can't find the function to know that they could use it? [think Passage Analysis Pericope Comparison] the feature is incomplete for meeting the needs of the users? [think lack of n-tuples in Concordance or choice of resources in Outline Comparison or Workflows limited to a single passage] the feature is misplaced in comparison to the users' use? [for me, the case frames] the feature is awkward to compared to external tools that the user is familiar with? [sentence diagrammer] the user doesn't understand what the tool provides them? [discourse analysis for many] the feature doesn't provide any useful information? the feature has so many errors that the user doesn't trust it? [morphology charts may fall here because of bugs] You note that very few of these justify the removal of the feature.
Excellent MJ, better put than I have done so.
