Enough with the WordSearch brouhaha...I want what I paid for.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118886#Comment_1118886

Kyle G. Anderson said:

In your additional post you referenced an issue with JETS. I believe you were using this as an illustration for a larger point that I don't want to distract from too much. However, I looked into it a bit further and I think you were referring to issues that are part of the Galaxie Theological Journal bundle. On the product page we explicitly state on that certain tagging isn't supported. I wish this wasn't so but it's was a unique and purposeful decision to produce them in that matter.

With regard to Galaxie, I looked at their website and they mention they are available on Accordance and Wordsearch (with Logos getting a slight mention). With the acquisition of WS, does that give FL more leverage and pull with regard to getting Galaxie to fall in line on tagging and linking? I hope so. Come to think of it, maybe FL should just buy Galaxie next? That would solve that problem...and then, FL could make the big move and buy Brill!!! Finally, FL would be able to offer Vetus Testamentum! [I]

I did notice that Accordance is making noise about the "recent bible software shake-up" and how they plan to stick around, while also making a pitch for themselves. Have to admit, I didn't understand the logic of their "a competitor bought a competitor, so buy our software" pitch. 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118984#Comment_1118984

Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:

It's been a huge undertaking, and it's long overdue. I'm really sorry it's taken so long to solve some of these systemic issues keeping many hyperlinks from properly resolving. But we're making really good progress and are committed to getting to the finish line on this. And I'm hopeful we'll be able to build some really cool functionality on top of this data once we're finished with the merging work and have the remaining systems and processes issues resolved.

I'm glad to hear that FL is working the problem, but it's usable results that matter, as always. Not attempting to draw an equivalence of importance, but I'm sort of in the mindset of civil rights protesters who keep getting told, "shush, you're pushing too hard and making too much noise...things just take time". [Ironically, that sentiment comes from other users moreso than from FL. Seems like there's always somebody willing to rock the Samuel Jackson vibe a la Django Unchained.] Tbh, I fully understand the frustration of those who are tired of hearing "one day". Also, I just don't think we have much time to play with. Things that are going to get done need to be done soon...and much needs to get done.

Donnie Hale said:While I hope I wouldn't communicate with the vitriol that David is communicating

Well, paint me somewhere in the continuum between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. I don't like being vitriolic and feeling like things have come to a point where it's needed, but squeaky wheel and all that. A little rattling of the barricades keeps people on their toes and cooks off complacency. Still, I prefer a frosty brew to a Molotov cocktail any day! [B]

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118812#Comment_1118812

Thomas Myers said:

David is there anything else we can be praying for you?

I’ll pray for him too 👍😁👌

DAL

Ps.  Thank you, FL for everything you’re doing! I know it’s a lot of work!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118764#Comment_1118764

MJ. Smith said:

Personally I am more concerned with Logos providing incorrect information than I am about the extra effort required by missing coding. I suspect I am in the minority on that and that you are in the majority.

Actually, that does bother me to some degree, but I pretty much avoid that concern by making very little use of Logos data sets. I'm sure that others get tons of benefit from them, but I've noticed on numerous occasions that people will bring a particular search failure to the forum, and time and again, whether its a search string or a data set, items one would fully expect to be included in a given "set" or search don't get lit up. I know the effort and energy put into the process of mining for the desired data is noble, but the thing I also notice is that the only way to know if the search or data set is complete is if you go in and rake through the Scriptural material by hand (so to speak). Sets and strings can always be refined, but at some point those who take the outputs and run are blindly assuming the work others have done is adequate and accurate. I'm sure that on some occasions it is, and that's great for both producer and consumer, but I personally can't buy into that process--I feel like I'm shirking my responsibility. On the other hand, I can see plenty of value of using a given search string or data set to check my own research, testing to see if my efforts missed anything. I do feel like some folks want Logos to keep them from having to break a mental sweat.

If you are thinking more along the lines of a particular doctrinal or theological perspective knowingly or unknowingly shading, shaping, or shaving an accurate Scriptural understanding, I personally just think that kind of thing is unavoidable. The only Logos resources I expect to be accurate are Bibles and to some extent lexicons and the like, and even there I don't expect anything like perfection.

Links, on the other hand, are either there and working or they aren't...the guesswork is minimal. In that respect, resolutions should be easier to attain.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118984#Comment_1118984

Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:

It could also open up all sorts of opportunities for some pretty cool applications down the road:

1. Building a master citation graph that maps the relationships between resources, works, their authors, etc.
2. Building a system for browsing, searching, and managing works (e.g., an essay in a festschrift) as distinct from resources (i.e., the resource that contains it).
3. Improving the ranking of resources and works by leveraging citation strength (among other factors) throughout the application (e.g., improved default resource priorities, improved search result ranking, improved ranking in various guide sections).
4. Showing a list of the top incoming and outgoing linked resources and works both in Logos and on Logos.com.

Verbum 10 wishlist items for me.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1118984#Comment_1118984

Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:

It could also open up all sorts of opportunities for some pretty cool applications down the road:

1. Building a master citation graph that maps the relationships between resources, works, their authors, etc.
2. Building a system for browsing, searching, and managing works (e.g., an essay in a festschrift) as distinct from resources (i.e., the resource that contains it).
3. Improving the ranking of resources and works by leveraging citation strength (among other factors) throughout the application (e.g., improved default resource priorities, improved search result ranking, improved ranking in various guide sections).
4. Showing a list of the top incoming and outgoing linked resources and works both in Logos and on Logos.com.
5. Providing us with another really important data point for prioritizing which works we need to acquire, add additional tagging and functionality to, etc.

I think all of these are good and hopeful objectives, although to some extent I would have expected most of these things were possibilities already based just on in-place database info. A few weeks ago, I re-re-requested that FL prioritize the acquisition of the most cited resources within the entire Logos stable, a move which I think would provide the most bang-for-the-buck hyperlink strengthening of users' libraries. Most of the objectives listed above seem to advance that cause, which when completed should enhance everyone's experience.

I have just one more request on this front. The one resource I am most desirous of seeing in Logos is Vetus Testamentum (the journal, the supplements, the congress volumes, the whole works). VT alone accounts for multiple thousands of citations. I believe someone (probably Phil) deflated my hopes by saying that objective was not likely to be achieved any time soon. I have one piece of Biblical advice for consideration and implementation...Lk. 18:1-8. In other words, bug the snot out of them until they relent. Do an Andy Dufrense and contact them until they're seeing triple. Seriously, wear...them...down.