BUG: Circular definitions in Help and Documentation

I've been looking at a fair amount of documentation and have been bemused/annoyed by the number of circular definition. Naturally I prefer definitions that actually define terms. Therefore, I'd like to see a concerted effort to rewrite circular definitions when the documentation is being updated. An example from Speaking to God:

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

SineNomine

In this particular case, is this truly a definition, or is it an explanation other than a definition? For example (in a different context), "Awkward: Used to label an awkward phrase, sentence, or longer portion of prose, indicating that one or more changes are required for readability."

MJ. Smith

In this particular case, is this truly a definition, or is it an explanation other than a definition?

Do you mean "is this a definition?" the answer is "no, it is a circular stand in for a definition".

If you mean "should this be a definition?" the answer is yes as it is parallel to addressee, speaker, distance which are definitions.

SineNomine

Do you mean "is this a definition?" the answer is "no, it is a circular stand in for a definition".

I mean, "Does Faithlife intend to provide a definition here?" I happen to think that the answer to this is negative. See also the description of "Type", "Visionary", and "Ritual". I think that Faithlife is intending to provide explanations of what the facets are rather than true definitions. Thus they explain that the "Type" facet signifies "The type of speech", which would be a needlessly lengthy name for a facet, rather than defining what the word "type" means, while the explanation of "Ritual" indicates that it is used in certain circumstances to label text that is not part of a ritual.

MJ. Smith

I mean, "Does Faithlife intend to provide a definition here?" I happen to think that the answer to this is negative.

Whereas, I mean, "by providing documentation Faithlife is taking responsibility for providing definitions of terms - a basic requirement for making their tagging and tools usable. Has Faithlife succeeded in providing a definition or something reasonably close to one?" Probably the worst example of Faithlife failing through the use of circular definitions is from Help:

[quote]

• content — An entity acting as a semantic content
• cost — An entity acting as a semantic cost
• current — An entity acting as a semantic current
• event — An entity acting as a semantic event

Logos Help (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2018).

Why does it matter? If the user doesn't know what a piece of data is or what a search parameter is, they are likely to (a) not use it at all, missing a useful tool, (b) misuse the data because they misunderstand it, or (c) not recognize that there is another Bible study skill to learn. Why do I care? (a) It will show up in Logos usage statistics and warp the development of new features and (b) if I help someone on the forums I present "esoteric" knowledge rather than point them to documentation which enhances the perception that Logos is hard to learn and becoming a "power user" is an achievable dream.

I want Faithlife to broaden their base and, as a result, broaden their tools.