INCONSISTENCY: Why are there these two very similar search fields?

Rosie Perera

Is there any difference? It's confusing having the two. It seems to me to be a glitch in tagging. Some resources have cross references tagged as "Cross Reference" and others as "Cross References". If you want to do an exhaustive search would you need to check both of these boxes, or does that result in an AND of the fields, in which case you'd need to do two different searches, first with "Cross Reference" checked and second with only "Cross References" checked? This needs to be cleaned up.

Dave Hooton

Is there any difference? It's confusing having the two. It seems to me to be a glitch in tagging

I agree.

crossreference and crossref are recognised field names but not  crossreferences. I only see Cross Reference in the drop down field list. If you see only Cross References in some resources, do you get results with crossref: e.g. crossref:<Jn 3:16>?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1225901#Comment_1225901

Is there any difference? It's confusing having the two. It seems to me to be a glitch in tagging

I agree.

crossreference and crossref are recognised field names but not  crossreferences. I only see Cross Reference in the drop down field list. If you see only Cross References in some resources, do you get results with crossref: e.g. crossref:<Jn 3:16>?

Interesting - I see both, even if I have no resource where this search field yields results for <Jn 3> in Cross References (the bookshop gives quite a number of those) 

This actually looked very suspicious.

I choose to buy one:

after indexing, turned to inline search: no such search field!
 
 

of course, running the search again did not show any hits for Cross References in my downloaded library.

I believe this spurious search field is a bug in the bookstore search, where it basically hits for bible references in the book which are present, but not tagged as cross references. 

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1225915#Comment_1225915

I believe this spurious search field is a bug in the bookstore search

Then I would also see the spurious field. See if you get the same hits with crossref:<Jn 3>

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1225993#Comment_1225993

See if you get the same hits with crossref:<Jn 3>

Nope. I get hits in 64 resources, all bibles and commentaries.  

These are the same results for the search field Cross Reference without s:

so it is weird - probably a bug - that the field is indexed for searches (and rightly so), but not exposed as a search field. The bookstore results for both may be the same or different (we can't see the total hits, they are build one "more" hit after the other)  

Why you can't see the Cross References with s is beyond me. Running Logos 9.17 Beta 3 on Windows 10. 

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1226001#Comment_1226001

The bookstore results for both may be the same or different (we can't see the total hits, they are build one "more" hit after the other)  

You see results by book and some should be returned for a second similar query.

Why you can't see the Cross References with s is beyond me.

I have a smaller, more select, library.[:D]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1226007#Comment_1226007

Why you can't see the Cross References with s is beyond me.

I have a smaller, more select, library.

If that was the reason, then I would expect hits in my convoluted, all-over-the-place library....