Disappionted- again!

Ok just purchased this resource https://www.logos.com/product/166087/salvation-accomplished-by-the-son

and- the first footnote, doesn't work, the 2nd footnote not linked, the third footnote not linked, etc. etc. etc. Really- I own the resources referenced. Specifically the first resource "The Cross of Christ" John Stott.

I don't want to complain, I lied I do, this is not the first resource with these issues, have we stopped linking?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NB.Mick

Ok just purchased this resource https://www.logos.com/product/166087/salvation-accomplished-by-the-son

and- the first footnote, doesn't work, the 2nd footnote not linked, the third footnote not linked, etc. etc. etc. Really- I own the resources referenced. Specifically the first resource "The Cross of Christ" John Stott.

I don't want to complain, I lied I do, this is not the first resource with these issues, have we stopped linking?

I'm not sure which resources should be linked by those footnotes. But normally Logos links resources which are in the catalog at the time of production, which - since this book is from 2012 - may have not included Stott's "The Cross of Christ" at that time.

If you - and others - report the missing links as typos, there's a chance this resource will be reworked to include the links.

Kenneth Neighoff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071727#Comment_1071727

The first link does not work for me, but I have the 2006 edition of The Cross of Christ, not the 1986 version in the footnote.

The next several footnotes are linked.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071727#Comment_1071727

I'm not sure which resources should be linked by those footnotes. But normally Logos links resources which are in the catalog at the time of production,

You would think so, but there are many cases in which that does not happen.* Also, it really shouldn't be left to the customer to figure out how literally to take the "Benefits of Logos Edition" section.

In the end, you roll the dice, you take your chances.

*e.g., https://community.logos.com/forums/t/95209.aspx

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/54016/825846.aspx#825846

Kyle G. Anderson

Ok just purchased this resource https://www.logos.com/product/166087/salvation-accomplished-by-the-son

and- the first footnote, doesn't work, the 2nd footnote not linked, the third footnote not linked, etc. etc. etc. Really- I own the resources referenced. Specifically the first resource "The Cross of Christ" John Stott.

I don't want to complain, I lied I do, this is not the first resource with these issues, have we stopped linking?

I'm sorry you're disappointed. In this case the book references the 1986 edition of Stott's book. We do not carry that edition. We only carry the 2006 edition. At this time we're not able to support cross-edition linking. It's something we'd like to do but we're not there yet.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071745#Comment_1071745

Ok just purchased this resource https://www.logos.com/product/166087/salvation-accomplished-by-the-son

and- the first footnote, doesn't work, the 2nd footnote not linked, the third footnote not linked, etc. etc. etc. Really- I own the resources referenced. Specifically the first resource "The Cross of Christ" John Stott.

I don't want to complain, I lied I do, this is not the first resource with these issues, have we stopped linking?

I'm sorry you're disappointed. In this case the book references the 1986 edition of Stott's book. We do not carry that edition. We only carry the 2006 edition. At this time we're not able to support cross-edition linking. It's something we'd like to do but we're not there yet.

I guess I have to accept that- but from now on before I buy anymore resources I'll go to CBD or Amazoo and look to see if I can get a biblio before I purchase, the book just lost some value so glad I didn't pay more than $5.99. We need away to create our own footnotes- and I don't mean NOTES YUK!!

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071745#Comment_1071745

I'm sorry you're disappointed. In this case the book references the 1986 edition of Stott's book. We do not carry that edition. We only carry the 2006 edition. At this time we're not able to support cross-edition linking. It's something we'd like to do but we're not there yet.

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited. There is too much of a chance that the edition could have changed the information being cited. Unless there is some way to provide a suggested citation to the new edition, but this is a slippery slope.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071751#Comment_1071751

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited. There is too much of a chance that the edition could have changed the information being cited. Unless there is some way to provide a suggested citation to the new edition, but this is a slippery slope.

I'm with you on that because really, the author cited the material based on that particular edition. If I see a footnote to an edition that I don't have, I understand and I can roll with it. I wouldn't expect it to cite a resource that did not exist when the citing author created the work. Besides, I cannot imagine the nightmare of managing situations where the text changes (or is removed) between editions, or the nuance make the old footnote make less sense, or even having to look up where the same material is.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071751#Comment_1071751

I'm sorry you're disappointed. In this case the book references the 1986 edition of Stott's book. We do not carry that edition. We only carry the 2006 edition. At this time we're not able to support cross-edition linking. It's something we'd like to do but we're not there yet.

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited. There is too much of a chance that the edition could have changed the information being cited. Unless there is some way to provide a suggested citation to the new edition, but this is a slippery slope.

Understood. And this makes sense to me.

We're interested in solving the problem of "for many possible reasons you don't have this exact edition in your library but you do have this related title" where the related title might be a second edition, revised version, or maybe even an essay or book found in another collection that you do have in your library.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071761#Comment_1071761

I'm sorry you're disappointed. In this case the book references the 1986 edition of Stott's book. We do not carry that edition. We only carry the 2006 edition. At this time we're not able to support cross-edition linking. It's something we'd like to do but we're not there yet.

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited. There is too much of a chance that the edition could have changed the information being cited. Unless there is some way to provide a suggested citation to the new edition, but this is a slippery slope.

Understood. And this makes sense to me.

We're interested in solving the problem of "for many possible reasons you don't have this exact edition in your library but you do have this related title" where the related title might be a second edition, revised version, or maybe even an essay or book found in another collection that you do have in your library.

I would suggest opening a "Resource Not Found" page, which gives the option to buy or to "try this section in the nth edition from your library." That way we could go to the right chapter in a different edition, but it is clear that we are not being taken to what the original author was referencing, and it may or may not be helpful. I am sure it would still be a lot of work to efficiently convert a page number in the first edition to a chapter in the first edition to a chapter in the second edition to a page in the second edition, but from a user standpoint, this is the behavior I would expect.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071751#Comment_1071751

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited.

As am I. There are already enough places where one has to remember the quirks of Logos in order to not abuse the data.

Glenn Crouch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1071751#Comment_1071751

Just for the record, I am against linking citations to an edition other than the one originally cited. There is too much of a chance that the edition could have changed the information being cited. Unless there is some way to provide a suggested citation to the new edition, but this is a slippery slope.

Agreed - but I would really like your "suggested citation" - which could include a link to a edition you do own so that you could search for yourself.