Navigation problem using the Locator Bar

When I use the Locator Bar to navigate from verse to verse, sometimes the Greek NT text I am using jumps back to the beginning of the same chapter unpredictably instead of going to the next verse. I then have to find my place again by clicking next, next. etc. The texts I am using are linked via a linked set and set to "verse" in the Locator Bar, with the exception of those resources that I have open that are not linked. Is anyone else having this problem?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Kevin A

I get this problem if I scroll even slightly in a linked resource that does not have the exact verse I am in, but that does have a range that includes that verse, eg a commentary. A slight scroll in the linked resource will bring my bible back to the start of the range.

You can use Multiple Resource View to overcome this, but then you lose access to other individual panel features such as using arrows to scroll to the next parallel resource, TOC, Visual Filters etc.

Unless Faithlife implement a Leader/Follower link set, it will continue to be a problem. I have taken to using a linked Guide with Commentaries then clicking on the commentary in the guide I want to read, which will open at the reference I am at. I can can then scroll whereever...but it would be nice if it just tailed without interfering with the bible position.

Anyway if this is not your problem, perhaps you can post the resources you have linked, which verses you are in etc, so we can see if we can replicate using the navigation bar. A screen shot would be good also.

Cheers

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104086#Comment_1104086

Unless Faithlife implement a Leader/Follower link set, it will continue to be a problem.

The multi-view panel is the Faithlife solution to this problem - it has a single driving resource.

Kevin A

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104088#Comment_1104088

Indeed, which is fine until you wish to start browsing through your commentaries, at which point it is not that much fun.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104091#Comment_1104091

Indeed, which is fine until you wish to start browsing through your commentaries, at which point it is not that much fun.

Hmmmm... may I rephrase that "the master/slave relationship is fine until you want to start browsing outside the master/slave relationship, at which point the master/slave relationship is not that much fun". You have your choice of three relationships:

master-slave
coordinated (any serves as master)
independent

What we don't have is a "read my mind" relationship that allow the three to be mixed. There is certainly room for refinement of the behavior of the three options - you can make such suggestions in the forums and uservoice. But somehow, I am not understanding what 4th option you want.

Kevin A

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104095#Comment_1104095

Thanks but I don't want to derail the thread by unnecessarily discussing it here, I understand the limitations and benefits of each options, and have raised my thoughts in other relevant threads.

I only raised the point as this problem may be the reason that Logosed is having his resource jump around. I then explained two options that, if it is the cause of his/her problem, could be used as a workaround, specifying the a few of the pros and cons of each option.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104095#Comment_1104095

But somehow, I am not understanding what 4th option you want.

I think Kevin wants a pane-based master-slave relationship. Item A (or any item) in pane 1 is always master; any item in pane 2 is always slave.

Kevin A

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104100#Comment_1104100

Beautifully described, so that I can read through my bible in pane 1, and with ease cycle through corresponding verses in my commentaries in pane 2 without them changing my position in pane 1. I can then move on a bit more in my bible, and when needed, I can again in pane 2 look through my commentaries for that particular verse I am at.

So basically using the parallel resource sets, but not having them update pane 1 whilst cycling through them. Multiple tabs/panes with parallel resources sets would be good for each parallel resource set. I could then choose the 'Expositional' tab if I wanted to cycle through expositional commentaries, Technical tab for technical commentaries etc etc. As you switch to the next parallel resource, that also looks to the Leader for its verse reference, as currently cycling parallel resource sets have a tendency to 'drift'.

Anyway sorry Logosed please do let us know some more details about your issue.

Bill

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104100#Comment_1104100

I think Kevin wants a pane-based master-slave relationship. Item A (or any item) in pane 1 is always master; any item in pane 2 is always slave.

Great idea on the surface. Suggest placing this on the "Logos 9 Wishlist" thread with a link to this thread.

Logosed

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104101#Comment_1104101

Could the problems I have been having be linked to the fact that I have a minimal Logos Library? I have bought quite a large number of individual resources but no Logos Base package?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104115#Comment_1104115

Could the problems I have been having be linked to the fact that I have a minimal Logos Library?

My demonstration account has an order total of $ 0.00 with Library showing 662 resources. Thankful for Logos 8 Upgrade that included free gift of Logos 7 Fundamentals with a subsequent coupon covering special upgrade price of Logos 8 Fundamentals that includes Multiview Resources, whose column width can be adjusted:

If Apparatus is Linked to Greek New Testament, then scrolling in Apparatus can cause Linked Bible to jump to keep in sync. Multi-View allows Apparatus to be scrolled while not changing Greek New Testament location.

Another thought is having a Commentary Link Set along with Prioritizing a Commentary or Two into Top Five Bibles, which allows Right Click => Verse => Lookup to have clickable buttons for changing Commentary location. Hover over Lookup button has pop-up

Keep Smiling [:)]

Logosed

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104121#Comment_1104121

Thank you.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104088#Comment_1104088

Unless Faithlife implement a Leader/Follower link set, it will continue to be a problem.

The multi-view panel is the Faithlife solution to this problem - it has a single driving resource.

Illustrates FL remains as a 'big-iron' company (legasy desktops and sweet Libby ... mobile and web, as time permits). I just wish they could get verses to align. Verse 4 ... ok, now, verse 4, not 8 ... careful there, verse 4 ..... even for Bibles. It's tough work.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104100#Comment_1104100

I think Kevin wants a pane-based master-slave relationship. Item A (or any item) in pane 1 is always master; any item in pane 2 is always slave.

I am still missing some essential point. How does what you describe differ in behavior from the multi-view pane? Or are you speaking of being able to use features such as the Find command against any particular slave? Is my problem that I'm thinking only of navigational behavior?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104132#Comment_1104132

Illustrates FL remains as a 'big-iron' company (legasy desktops and sweet Libby ... mobile and web, as time permits)

This is true ... and in my case the desired focus so I'd drop the "legacy" adjective. I would agree that the mobile and web may deserve a larger piece of the pie but some of us are interested in questions that require significant computing power - I have no problem with that being in the cloud but (a) that increases FL baseline costs for everyone not just those who use the features (b) requires consistent internet which I do not have and (c) requires speedy internet which I do not have.

I don't know what is different about how I use Verbum/Logos, but I rarely run into the alignment problem on the desktop. Yes, it is frustrating when I do. But I rarely run multiple Bibles that use the same verse map. I wonder if the extra step in positioning incidentally shield me from the problem?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104171#Comment_1104171

This is true ... and in my case the desired focus so I'd drop the "legacy" adjective. I would agree that the mobile and web may deserve a larger piece of the pie but some of us are interested in questions that require significant computing power - I have no problem with that being in the cloud but (a) that increases FL baseline costs for everyone not just those who use the features (b) requires consistent internet which I do not have and (c) requires speedy internet which I do not have.

Well, I'm arguing well outside my preferences. My own software is hugely legacy based .... the problem with new computers is they're more powerful. New galaxies to explore. Who can resist! Already hot on the trail of the gods.

But companies tend to keep dancing with the one who brought them. Without being excessively cat-iferous, I don't think FL can escape its beginnings ('neato') in favor of either ease of use or unbelievably sophisticated. We had bunches of IBM invested when it couldn't let go ... but finally they did.

The argument, mobile or web vs desktop at FL is not quite right, I'm guessing. My impression is Logos (and its platforms) are being pruned/parked, Proclaim finishing up, both in favor of church management, etc. On the surface, not so good for Logos. But big picture, keeps the company stable and growing. In theory, major markets outside the english world.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104176#Comment_1104176

But companies tend to keep dancing with the one who brought them. Without being excessively cat-iferous, I don't think FL can escape its beginnings ('neato') in favor of either ease of use or unbelievably sophisticated.

I agree with you but would carry it a bit further. I think Logos is fettered by its Evangelical roots, failing to understand the continuum that includes Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. Note: my failure to mention other churches that may belong in the list is probably because I don't know enough about them to include them. Faithlife designs as it there is a single point of division i.e. Logos/Verbum .... but it you start mapping needs, the needs have differing divisions. Examples:

lectionaries - broader than the list above with required/optional distinctions
ISSL and other Sunday School lesson lectionaries - the left end of the list above, optional; many denominations not listed
multiple passages studied together - emphasized in the right end of the list above; sometimes with separate preaching text texts in lectionary (primarily Lutheran)
sanctoral cycle i.e. celebrate saints -proposals for left two, present for all the rest
weekday services i.e. morning/evening services or eucharistic services - I'm uncertain regarding the leftmost two - otherwise a yes
Eucharist/Lord's Supper every Sunday - I'm uncertain regarding the leftmost two - otherwise a yes
structure/text of service predefined - yes, in part, for all but with varying degrees of personal choice
Scripture interpretation normally considers tradition as one element - Presbyterians, I don't know; Lutherans, it is not in the models I am familiar with; all others explicitly include tradition.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104181#Comment_1104181

I think Logos is fettered by its Evangelical roots, failing to understand the continuum that includes Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox

Agree. This will sound pretty bad, but when I see Catholic threads (as an example), I always wonder (again, apologies) if their theological brains have to turn sideways in order to use the software. Or saying it differently, I'd design Verbum completely differently, I'm guessing. Your list is educational.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1104186#Comment_1104186

if their theological brains have to turn sideways in order to use the software.

Fortunately, many of us understand the physics concept of "alternative universes" and recognize that there are other blocks of users who approach from other "alternative universes". The place where it becomes problematic is when the base group want the low level coding (word sense, for example) to reflect their universe rather than the text. While I may have shut up rather than wasting effort on the immovable object, this is still my major reason for distrusting all Faithlife coding.