Feature request: Down-prioritized resources

Hi!

So there's a way to set prioritized resources, and there's a way to remove resources "completely" by hiding them. What there does not seem to be, is a way to down-prioritize resources.

That would be nice to use on resources that I want to be included in my searches, but they should appear at the very bottom of the list. In this way my prioritized resources would come first, then the "neutral" ones and then at last the ones I think lightly of

Good or bad idea?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Good or bad idea?

GREAT idea... once which I proposed many years ago [:)] (to no avail [:s]).

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/55594/401637.aspx#401637

J. Remington Bowling

I thought prioritization was handled by order, which would make this suggestion obsolete, unless I'm overlooking something.

Suppose that I want to prioritize CSB to come first, ESV to be "neutral" and then LEB to be last. Wouldn't this ordering of 1, 2, 3 in prioritization already accomplish this?

Graham Criddle

Wouldn't this ordering of 1, 2, 3 in prioritization already accomplish this?

Not really - as then the rest of your resources would appear in "default" prioritisation order.

What is being requested here is that we can override the default prioritisation and force some resources to the bottom of the list.

Dave Hooton

What there does not seem to be, is a way to down-prioritize resources.

That would be nice to use on resources that I want to be included in my searches, but they should appear at the very bottom of the list

To be clear, Prioritization does not affect resource order in Searches (Morph, Bible, Basic ,etc). In a generic sense, though, I think you include Guides as searches, and Prioritization does impact the order of resources e.g in the Topic section of Topic Guide; where you can't control what/how many are listed. The Commentaries section in Passage Guide can be used to manipulate prioritization, because you can have many such sections; each defined by a Collection. If your top prioritized commentaries are not in a particular collection, the "bunnies" will be listed (if they are included, they will still be listed at the top).

Down-prioritization of resources would not be easy, as the Prioritzation feature would have to be drastically overhauled; which Faithlife haven't been keen to do e.g. be able to consign resources to the "bottom" of the list, and restore them at a later time.

J. Erik

Yes, I was primarily speaking of the guides when I wrote "searches".

I see... well, the request is there if they can find time and resources for it

JT (alabama24)

I thought prioritization was handled by order, which would make this suggestion obsolete, unless I'm overlooking something.

Suppose that I want to prioritize CSB to come first, ESV to be "neutral" and then LEB to be last. Wouldn't this ordering of 1, 2, 3 in prioritization already accomplish this?

You are overlooking that my library has over 10,000 resources! If you have 10 resources, your system works fine. If you have 10,000 it doesn’t.

Consider this example: a user has resources from a different faith. She may not want to delete the resources... they are helpful when studying or ministering to someone of that faith. She may not want, however, for those resources to pop up during searches. My original idea was that HIDDEN resources would show up under a separate (collapsed) section in searches and guides. ARCHIVED (what FL unfortunately calls “hidden”) resources would not show up at all until unarchived. This would be different than resources in the cloud.

Levi Durfey

Consider this example: a user has resources from a different faith. She may not want to delete the resources... they are helpful when studying or ministering to someone of that faith. She may not want, however, for those resources to pop up during searches. My original idea was that HIDDEN resources would show up under a separate (collapsed) section in searches and guides. ARCHIVED (what FL unfortunately calls “hidden”) resources would not show up at all until unarchived. This would be different than resources in the cloud.

[Y] to de-prioritized resources. I never knew I needed this until someone suggested it! It would really clean up searches!

SineNomine

I too really wish this existed.

MJ. Smith

I solve this problem in searches by having two collections which are subsets of my library

"Basic Verbum/Logos" which is limited to books related to the Bible, religion, et. al. minus books I consider trash
"A staunchly Catholic collection" which is limited to books useful when I want a Catholic perspective

I very rarely search my entire collection which includes historical documents, classics, Buddhism etc.

Michael G Parry-Thomas

MJ is it possible you could share a copy of the your

staunchly Catholic collection and your Basic Verbum/Logos collection

Dave Hooton

I thought prioritization was handled by order, which would make this suggestion obsolete, unless I'm overlooking something.

Suppose that I want to prioritize CSB to come first, ESV to be "neutral" and then LEB to be last. Wouldn't this ordering of 1, 2, 3 in prioritization already accomplish this?

You are overlooking that my library has over 10,000 resources! If you have 10 resources, your system works fine. If you have 10,000 it doesn’t.

Consider this example: a user has resources from a different faith. She may not want to delete the resources... they are helpful when studying or ministering to someone of that faith. She may not want, however, for those resources to pop up during searches. My original idea was that HIDDEN resources would show up under a separate (collapsed) section in searches and guides. ARCHIVED (what FL unfortunately calls “hidden”) resources would not show up at all until unarchived. This would be different than resources in the cloud.

This seems to be off-track as the OP is referring to Guides, where Prioritization will assist you if unwanted resources "pop up" i.e. they don't have to be hidden. If they appear in Searches (Morph, Basic , Bible) you can create appropriate collections, using rules for resources you want or don't want. Tagging and/or Rating unwanted resources requires almost as much effort as hiding them, and you can easily undo them! And you can get them to appear in a separate Search, using a collection that includes them. I generally hide unwanted resources if they are too numerous for a pick list e.g. the list of bibles in Morph/Bible Search.

Also, you don't have to limit a Search with a created collection - you can type a collection rule, or pick from "Tags and Ratings".

Linked Searches e.g. from a guide or Factbook, could be a problem. You can modify them after the initial run, or it becomes a factor for hiding resources!

We are currently testing removal of resources in beta 8.3. Primarily intended for users with limited disk space, you can still remove resources you don't want, and they will appear in Library via the facet "Not on this device" (you can also select resources that are "On this device"). Removal affects the software in the same way as hidden, but it doesn't affect your other desktop/mobile installations. Also, resources can be easily restored via bulk selection from Library. An Everything Search will show results for removed resources in a Cloud Resources section, but it is currently restricted to a Ranked presentation.

Dave Hooton

de-prioritized resources. I never knew I needed this until someone suggested it! It would really clean up searches!

Provided you understand that the OP's searches refer to Guides.

MJ. Smith

Catholic is publisher:(Ignatius, "Liturgical Press","Paulist Press","Emmaus Road","Saint Benedict Press","Libreria Editrice Vaticana","Servant Press","St. Anthony Messenger Press","TAN Books","St Vladimir's Seminary Press","Ancient Faith Publishing","Catholic University of America","Newman Press","Conciliar Press","Benziger Brothers","Catholic Scripture Study International","Pontifical Biblical Institute","Catholic Answers","B. Herder","St. Tikhon's Seminary Press") with other manual additions

Basic Logos/Verbum depends on my manually marking everything I want included that isn't a standard Logos edition.

JT (alabama24)

This seems to be off-track as the OP is referring to Guides

I don't see how. If I have sources which I don't want to discard, but I also don't want showing up in guides/searches, why wouldn't a reverse prioritization be a good solution?