BUG? 4.0dB1: Odd Reference Text in Passage List

This appears in the following Passage List created from search results. I can understand it for the Psalm 25:1 reference, but it's out of place for the Ps 39:8 reference.

The search text that produced the results can be seen at the top of the screenshot.

Thanks
Richard

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

I tried to reproduce your result and instead got this in v4.0d Beta 2 creating the Passage List::-

I got results in Ps 39:7 in English bibles and Ps 21:5 in Lexham LXX which was correctly interpreted as "Bible Ps 22:4" when I used NIV as the bible for the List.

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134233#Comment_134233

<edit>

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/134233#Comment_134233

Not sure how this relates to my original post.

The bit I'd circled was a stray reference to "Bible Psalm 39:7" appearing right before Psalm 39:8 in the passage list.

What are the numbers you have circled - they seem to be where the Bible reference codes (NIV, ESV etc) would normally appear.

Thanks
Richard

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135396#Comment_135396

It's not a book. It's because the verse numbering for that Psalm is different in the Masoretic Text. Because your original search was "All Bibles", Logos could have chosen any verse mapping from your library. I think it chooses from the first resource it searched, which happened to have MT verse mapping. When you display in NIV, you're switching the mapping, and where there's a discrepancy Logos notes it. If you'd have done the original search in the NIV (or probably in any English Bible[s]), then NIV verse-mapping would have been used.

Kevin Becker

Richard, try an experiment. Hit the blue X by the NIV and type BHS in there and hit enter. Does the Bible Psalm 39:7 disappear? I would expect it to. Versification if often different by 1 between bibles in the Psalms.

Since your passage list was generated from "All Bibles" there would have been a mix of verse maps referencing this verse. Logos must have defaulted to a verse map that is different from the NIV. What was the first Bible version in the list.... does it use 39:8 for the verse that the NIV uses for 39:7?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135396#Comment_135396

What are the numbers you have circled - they seem to be where the Bible reference codes (NIV, ESV etc) would normally appear.

Correct! That's the bug as Verse mapping accounts for your passage differences.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135683#Comment_135683

That's the bug

It's not a bug. I think all it's doing is trying to display the passages in the first three versions you searched (in alphabetical order).

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135697#Comment_135697

It's not a bug. I think all it's doing is trying to display the passages in the first three versions you searched

It's a bug!

Note searching All Bibles:-

This is better, searching LXX Bibles:-

The results are in Logos LXX and Lexham Int LXX but the PL shows Lexham Int LXX + 2x LXX Swete

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135855#Comment_135855

It's not a bug. I think all it's doing is trying to display the passages in the first three versions you searched

It's trying to display the passages is the first three versions you searched, not the first three versions you found results in. I'm still not convinced that's a bug, but I do a agree it would make more sense to show the versions with results.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135900#Comment_135900

It's trying to display the passages is the first three versions you searched,

I don't recall that 0162, 0171, 0189 are bible versions!

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135909#Comment_135909

It's trying to display the passages is the first three versions you searched,

I don't recall that 0162, 0171, 0189 are bible versions!

That's because you've probably got them hidden, like I do:

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135910#Comment_135910

That's because you've probably got them hidden, like I do:

OK -- now I understand! They ARE (poor) abbreviations for actual bibles...

Mine aren't hidden, though. Which only emphasises the need for the PL versions to represent the bibles in which search results appeared (including the number of resources, which was two and not three).

Further, none of the spurious bibles are eligible for a lemma-based query.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/135912#Comment_135912

OK -- now I understand! They ARE (poor) abbreviations for actual bibles...

Sorry for not making that clear. I'm so used to seeing every time I open my library that I can almost quote those numbers by heart!

Richard Lyall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136052#Comment_136052

Ah I think I understand now.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136052#Comment_136052

OK -- now I understand! They ARE (poor) abbreviations for actual bibles...

Sorry for not making that clear. I'm so used to seeing every time I open my library that I can almost quote those numbers by heart!

Yes, it was difficult to imagine they were short titles for a resource!

Melissa Snyder

I've submitted report on possible bug with PL where resources are listed that aren't included in search results.

Update: This will be fixed in Beta 4 to use priority order. It covers each data type in the search.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136435#Comment_136435

I've submitted report on possible bug with PL where resources are listed that aren't included in search results.

Update: This will be fixed in Beta 4 to use priority order. It covers each data type in the search.

The example searches I used now provide more relevant PL's in Beta 4 but they still list bibles that are not in the search results. Is it so difficult to get a PL with 2 bibles instead of 3, or 1 instead of 2? One search worthy of mention was a Morph Search of my Hebrew bibles collection specifying a lemma with AF Morphology. The PL included BHS/WHM 4.2 with Westminster Morphology (it is in my collection).

Melissa Snyder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/139083#Comment_139083

The example searches I used now provide more relevant PL's in Beta 4 but they still list bibles that are not in the search results. Is it so difficult to get a PL with 2 bibles instead of 3, or 1 instead of 2? One search worthy of mention was a Morph Search of my Hebrew bibles collection specifying a lemma with AF Morphology. The PL included BHS/WHM 4.2 with Westminster Morphology (it is in my collection).

I've opened a new case on this request.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/139120#Comment_139120

You're tops Melissa!