BUG: Faithlife dropped ball on maintaining data

MJ. Smith

There is no polite way to put this: Faithlife makes a very strong effort at providing the documentation and data after a user insurrection in the forums ... then gradually drops the ball(s) and hopes we don't notice. This particular ball is one I quit using because I stripped my collections down to the bare minimum for performance reasons. However, it was the perfect solution to a user request for help in the forums. Then I found ... ball laying back on the L6 line ... no firm commitment to fix it immediately ... after all we didn't expect to actually use the collections did we?

Phil Gons (Logos)

"User insurrection" is a creative way to describe Matt's request.

I sent the request on to a team member who did some quick investigation before the holidays, and there wasn't an existing system we could just turn on. So I did look into it, but there wasn't an easy or scalable solution. I was hoping we'd be able to figure something out. We're just not there yet. I'm not sure I'd describe this as dropping the ball. I never promised we'd do this. I promised that we'd look into it, and we did.

The reality is that the list of user requests is always going to be 100 times larger than our capacity. We have to prioritize and spend our limited resources wisely, and we can't deliver on ever good idea. (That's true internally as well. Most of my good ideas don't get implemented. So I feel your pain.)

There has to be room to try an idea and not be obligated to continue it in perpetuity. We tried product collection with Logos 6, and some users appreciated it. But keeping it going doesn't seem to be in the top set of User Voice requests. I'd like to get this going again, but I don't think it's a top priority. I don't think you do either.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031181#Comment_1031181

Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:

There has to be room to try an idea and not be obligated to continue it in perpetuity. We tried product collection with Logos 6, and some users appreciated it. But keeping it going doesn't seem to be in the top set of User Voice requests. I'd like to get this going again, but I don't think it's a top priority. I don't think you do either.

I agree that there needs to be room for trials ... but Faithlife must communicate. They must tell us that it is a trial. They must tell us when they drop it. From my point of view, exacerbated by my use of the broader canon and techniques outside the standard evangelical hermeneutic  tool set, I have become distrustful of Logos data - "all" people that omits people named only in ancillary literature but unnamed in the Bible, "all" events that omits events in some books, "all" tagging that omits the unfavored reading. So, yes, unless Faithlife specifically states that "all" means "the majority of" and that features are available only if you use the favored Bible(s) and that Logos provided data is available only on trial or was discontinued on ... I will be an intentional thorn in the side ...

And lest you think I am confusing Verbum requirements with Logos requirements, I assure you that my measure of "complete" is the ecumenical edition of the NRSV used by several mainline Protestant churches and commonly used for Bible as literature or introduction to Christianity classes in secular colleges. And, yes, I recommend Logos over its competitors but I try to sell it based on what it actually provides me.