a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
Kristin said:
Given what you wrote though, it sounds like you likely don't like how Logos reps go around to first year Greek classes trying to get students to buy the program. Is this correct?
I know nothing about this. But I do believe it is the responsibility of the professor to teach their Greek and Hebrew students to actually understand their grammars and dictionaries/lexicons. If I were a Greek professor, I would discourage the use of electronic tools (as opposed to simply electronic books) before the 2nd year.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Kristin said:
I truly despise AI. It might be useful (might be...)
You realize that most of the morphological and syntactic coding of your Bibles is the result of early AI? Natural language processing is generally considered to be a subfield of artificial intelligence.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hi Kristin
Kristin said:Logos advertising about v.11 adding AI is what finally provoked me to get Logos v.10, as I wanted to make sure I got the version that didn't include it.
I just wanted to flag that all the current subscription options from Logos contain different types of AI-based capability - and I understand that buying the L10 feature set (which it sounds like you did) does not include those.
But, as it currently stands, access to any new features (whether AI-based or not) will be done through subscription - so it isn't possible to separate out just upgrading non-AI capabilities. But, even if you do take out a subscription it is (at least currently) possible to choose not to use AI-based features by, for example:
- Not using the Summarisation tool
- Using precise searching syntax when running an All Search
- Potentially avoiding use of the Translation tool
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
You realize that most of the morphological and syntactic coding of your Bibles is the result of early AI?
Of course. Which is why I check all words by hand. That said, the world seems to agree that "early forms of AI" is hardly able to be compared to the monster of genuine AI which has come about only in the past few years.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
just wanted to flag that all the current subscription options from Logos contain different types of AI-based capability - and I understand that buying the L10 feature set (which it sounds like you did) does not include those.
Hi Graham,
Ya, that is correct that I bought v.10 without any subscriptions.
Graham Criddle said:But, as it currently stands, access to any new features (whether AI-based or not) will be done through subscription - so it isn't possible to separate out just upgrading non-AI capabilities. But, even if you do take out a subscription it is (at least currently) possible to choose not to use AI-based features by, for example:
- Not using the Summarisation tool
- Using precise searching syntax when running an All Search
- Potentially avoiding use of the Translation tool
Thank you for clarifying this! If I understand correctly, if in the future I wound up getting v.11, I would still be able to make sure all AI is totally disabled, which is very good to know. That said, would there even be a point to ever getting v.11 if I want to avoid subscriptions?
0 -
Kristin said:
Thank you for clarifying this! If I understand correctly, if in the future I wound up getting v.11, I would still be able to make sure all AI is totally disabled, which is very good to know. That said, would there even be a point to ever getting v.11 if I want to avoid subscriptions?
As we understand it at the moment, it isn't that we "get v11" but that we choose to subscribe to one of the subscription tiers. That results in us getting new features - appropriate for that tier - as they become available. (There may be new packages of books, but that's a separate discussion)
So even if someone doesn't want to use AI features, they might want some of the features in those tiers and, for new users, that would involve a subscription.
Last week, Mark Barnes posted a very useful spreadsheet showing what is available at what tiers - https://community.logos.com/forums/t/224437.aspx It shows, for example, that for a new user to be able to carry out Logos Syntax searches they would need a Logos Max subscription. For existing L10 users (with the full feature set) they can run them without subscriptions.
But there might be a new feature released sometime next year that doesn't use AI capability but is of real value to someone focused on the original languages. And, currently, the only way to get that access to that (for all users including current L10 users) will be via subscription.
As I mentioned, all of the current AI-based features are things you can avoid using and they also alert the user that this is happening
0 -
Kristin said:
That said, the world seems to agree that "early forms of AI" is hardly able to be compared to the monster of genuine AI which has come about only in the past few years.
I think of early AI as forward/backward chaining with the next level knowledge bases (if-then) up to the current level neural networks. I fear my actual understanding of AI ends at mid-level neural networks. In other words, my actual understanding is getting to be nearly a decade behind actual practice. But I see us as still a long way from "genuine AI" which requires the ability to judge reliability of the training sources and ignoring BS.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
As we understand it at the moment, it isn't that we "get v11" but that we choose to subscribe to one of the subscription tiers....Last week, Mark Barnes posted a very useful spreadsheet showing what is available at what tiers - https://community.logos.com/forums/t/224437.aspx It shows, for example, that for a new user to be able to carry out Logos Syntax searches they would need a Logos Max subscription. For existing L10 users (with the full feature set) they can run them without subscriptions.
Hi Graham,
Thank you for clarifying this. This is helpful to understand.
Graham Criddle said:But there might be a new feature released sometime next year that doesn't use AI capability but is of real value to someone focused on the original languages. And, currently, the only way to get that access to that (for all users including current L10 users) will be via subscription.
That makes sense. I think given this, I likely will still avoid it. While I can understand Logos introducing a great original language feature, the more I look into it, and hear everyone's responses, it seems like it just isn't realistic for me to do original language work in Logos since the two programs are just not compatible regarding how they are recording words. The example of λέγω above actually isn't a big deal. I can understand why someone would file εἶπέν as part of λέγω, while someone else would see it as a separate word. I can understand the logic, and I don't really see one as "right" and one as "wrong," as much as the new system is just not compatible with the filing system I have used for years. Also, λέγω is not a big deal since I am aware of it. But to my knowledge, there is not a record of ALL the OT and NT words which Accordance and Logos files differently. I would thus be sort of walking into it asking for errors, with some words filed twice and some not at all. It is thus good to use Logos for looking at stuff like ANET and such, but for original languages specifically, I really need to use Accordance, simply since that is the system I have used. Is this correct? I know I sort of wrote this like a statement, but it is actually a question. On one hand this in fact does seem to be the case. But on the other hand, I find it inconceivable that I am the only person who has needed to know the exact number of instances of a word and is using both Logos and Accordance. So being boxed into Accordance seems really peculiar.
Graham Criddle said:As I mentioned, all of the current AI-based features are things you can avoid using and they also alert the user that this is happening
Thank you for the screenshot! That is great to know. I sort of think that on v.10 I never have to worry about seeing this, but it is good to know that if AI ever weasels its way onto my computer, that Logos will let me know. That for sure puts my mind at ease.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
No, the software used doesn't particularly matter. And outside Biblical studies, there are a number of tools used by academics for language studies. If exact, consistent counts are necessary, then three things must be true whether or not your work is computer assisted.
- You must choose a specific edition/manuscript of the text
- You must choose a specific manner for handling textual variants
- You must choose a single set of rules for determining morphology and resolving ambiguities.
Shalom Kristin,
I do not think you have quite understood what MJ is trying to tell you.
Kristin said:So being boxed into Accordance seems really peculiar.
You are not just boxed into Accordance but you are also boxed into the specific OT and NT texts and morphological databases that you have started to use within Accordance. Even within Accordance the counts could be different if you would use another text/database in your Accordance library, e.g. MT-ETCBC instead of HMT-W4 or Textus Receptus instead of NA28.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
You are not just boxed into Accordance but you are also boxed into the specific OT and NT texts and morphological databases that you have started to use within Accordance. Even within Accordance the counts could be different if you would use another text/database in your Accordance library, e.g. MT-ETCBC instead of HMT-W4 or Textus Receptus instead of NA28.
Hi HJ. van der Wal,
Just to be clear, if I were using a different text, I would agree that would create issues. That is why I made the point to use the same text. For example, I am using NA28 in both softwares. It has just been surprising to me that I am the only person who is concerned about accurate hits of words who is trying to use both softwares. So I would have expected the theological arena to be more consistent. As mentioned above, there isn't even a list of words which the two softwares handle differently. And also, I can't stress enough how surprising this is, as what I am trying to do is super basic. Regardless of what type of research someone is doing, having an accurate hit count is fundamental. Yet I know for a fact that scholars use both softwares, so I am trying to understand how that is possible. I guess those people using both softwares just don't care about how often a word occurs in the text? It just doesn't make sense.
0 -
Kristin said:
It has just been surprising to me that I am the only person who is concerned about accurate hits of words who is trying to use both softwares.
Both Logos and Accordance are giving you accurate hit counts based on the system they've chosen to tag the hits. Logos' lemma search is searching every entry in BDAG as a separate lemma. That's an "accurate" search if you recognize what Logos is doing. Accordance is not searching every entry in BDAG, because they're looking at the lexical form.
I don't think there's a way to do a lexical search in Logos (which is Accordance's default) and I don't think there's a way to do a lemma search in Accordance (which is Logos' default).
So if you've already started using Accordance for lexical searches, you need to stick with Accordance for the sake of consistency.
NOTE: I could definitely be wrong, but this is how I currently understand it.0 -
Kristin said:
So I would have expected the theological arena to be more consistent.
This is where I have trouble understanding your position as I expect the advent of computerized text analysis to result is a greater variety of analyses. One can quickly see the effects of changing one's assumptions of the historical development of Greek or switching from a particular hierarchical view to a dependency view. Swanson has already illustrated how the parts-of-speech divisions can morph from written definitions to the output of a particular algorithm.
But it isn't a Logos/Accordance split. Logos allows a variety of morphological systems which return different results. BHS has applied at least 3 different morphological codes to its text. It isn't a software issue. It is a basic linguistics fact.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Allison said:
I don't think there's a way to do a lexical search in Logos (which is Accordance's default) and I don't think there's a way to do a lemma search in Accordance (which is Logos' default). So if you've already started using Accordance for lexical searches, you need to stick with Accordance for the sake of consistency.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the confirmation. When I first thought about doing stuff in Logos, I knew I needed the same texts, obviously, but it had truly never occurred to me that I would end up having counting issues. So this has been really unexpected. Thank you for the confirmation though.
That said, I am still just so surprised. Like I mentioned above, having an accurate count of words is critical for most people doing any sort of research with the original language, I would assume.
I was told (and believe) that a lot of scholars use both programs. So if I am understanding correctly, those people who use both programs are not doing both things in both programs, but rather using aspects of both. Is this correct? For example, I can run a lex search in Accordance, but then go to Logos for ANET. Is that what people mean when they say scholars use both programs?
I guess I had assumed it meant they could do their normal work in both programs, such as run a word count in both, but that ultra basic skill is apparently not possible to do in both because of the different philosophies. So I guess I will add "lex search" to my list of stuff I NEED Accordance for. The other being the plain text Mac friendly User Bible.
Thank you again.
0 -
Kristin said:
For example, I can run a lex search in Accordance, but then go to Logos for ANET. Is that what people mean when they say scholars use both programs?
I think most scholars who use both programs use Accordance for the majority of their language research, and Logos for the breadth of the library available to them. That's what I've done for 20 years. During that time I never thought of it as either/or, but both/and, and when I was with Accordance at trade shows like ETS/SBL, that's what I would say to our customers.
That is, until the last 2-3 years. I have no confidence at all that Accordance is going to last into the next decade (and that's being generous). I've completely switched to Logos and don't use Accordance at all any more. 5-10 years ago, Logos couldn't compare to Accordance when it came to original language research. But 5-10 years in computer time is decades in real time. Logos has advanced beyond Accordance in most areas of language research, and at this point, I wouldn't go back even if Accordance turns things around (which I pray they do. I invested a good part of my life into that company, and have a passion for what they do).
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
FWIW to anyone interested, I have been reading up on the THGNT to understand how it could or should fit into my studies. Here's an interesting blog I missed in 2023 which gives a general overview of the differences of the THGNT, NA28 and SBLGNT.
https://www.logos.com/grow/min-greek-new-testament/
For years I just happily used whatever the software programme dished out to me, but now that I have more options and accrued knowledge, I feel I must at least have some basic understanding of what is under the hood / bonnet.
When the THGNT was first available in print, many commentators did not know what to do with it. They wanted to compare one apparatus with another. But the THGNT deliberately had a very minimal apparatus.
Released some time after the printed editions, a small book was published that explained all of the major decisions which made this new testament different than all the others.
Logos: An Introduction to the Greek New Testament
Christian Book: An Introduction to the Greek New Testament: Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge
By now a lot of the information has made it to the internet. And several interviews with Dirk Jongkind are available. But the book is still very nice to read for those interested in textual issues.
0 -
Mark Allison said:
think most scholars who use both programs use Accordance for the majority of their language research, and Logos for the breadth of the library available to them. That's what I've done for 20 years. During that time I never thought of it as either/or, but both/and, and when I was with Accordance at trade shows like ETS/SBL, that's what I would say to our customers.
Oh, ok. [:)] That makes much more sense, and I will just plan on continuing to run my lex searches in Accordance.
Mark Allison said:That is, until the last 2-3 years. I have no confidence at all that Accordance is going to last into the next decade (and that's being generous).
Ya, that is my impression too, which is why I went ahead and got L10. 😔 While I am very grateful that Logos is here, I don't think Accordance struggling is good for anyone.
Mark Allison said:I've completely switched to Logos and don't use Accordance at all any more.
Not to be dense, but it sounds like you were able to do this since lex searches and the User Bible were not really things you did much in Accordance, so moving from lex to lemma searches didn't really mess up any of your records and the lack of a functional User Bible wasn't something you missed. By contrast, since those things are a huge aspect of what I do in Accordance, it would not be practical for me to totally switch over. Is this correct?
0 -
Kristin said:
Not to be dense, but it sounds like you were able to do this since lex searches and the User Bible were not really things you did much in Accordance, so moving from lex to lemma searches didn't really mess up any of your records and the lack of a functional User Bible wasn't something you missed. By contrast, since those things are a huge aspect of what I do in Accordance, it would not be practical for me to totally switch over. Is this correct?
Right. I wasn't doing the sort of research that you're doing. If I were you, I'd continue to use Accordance for your research.
0 -
Shalom Kristin,
What do you mean by "an accurate count of words"?
If for example you search for the noun אור "light" in the Hebrew Bible you will get:
- 122 hits (HMT-W4 in Accordance and BHW 4.18 in Logos)
- 121 hits (LHB in Logos)
- 115 hits (BHS in Logos and MT-ETCBC in Accordance)
All of these are accurate counts and it is not a Logos/Accordance split.
Having access to these texts with different morphological tagging is actually a positive thing for me. Now I can identify the verses that have been left out (or added) and do my own research on why אור has been interpreted differently in these verses.
I have noticed that the Westminster morphological database is the only one to read אור in Amos 8:8. Most scholars and translators emend the text to יאור "Nile".
0 -
Kristin, You might not want to do this but I would be interested to see if you can re-run (say, 5?) of your last research runs in both Logos and Accordance to see how they match/don't match. Searches are pretty quick in both programs. If you continued in Accordance but also ran it in duplicate in Logos I wonder if your confidence would diminish or increase? You might have already done this however.
0 -
Mark Allison said:
Right. I wasn't doing the sort of research that you're doing. If I were you, I'd continue to use Accordance for your research.
Hi Mark,
Thank you very much for clarifying this. I appreciate it!
0 -
Mark Allison said:
I've completely switched to Logos and don't use Accordance at all any more.
Hmm. I'm impressed. I'm probably 80% Logos now, but that remaining 20% is searches I haven't figured out how to do, or else resources I can't justify duplicating just yet. If I could figure out how to add favorites/bookmarks on mobile, it would jump to 90%.
0 -
Jonathan Huber said:
If I could figure out how to add favorites/bookmarks on mobile, it would jump to 90%.
Highlight where you want to put the favorite and then, in the context menu, slide it just a little. Favorite is one icon to the right of share, so you can almost see it without moving but not quite. It will show up in your desktop favorites under application -> mobile favorites.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Not sure if I should post this here, or a separate thread. This thread has inspired me to learn more about Lexicons so i guess it works
I found a podcast called Tool Talk, which discusses various related topics. One particular discussion is about the problems with the existing Greek Lexicons.
The majority of the podcast is a review of a book, so I will cite the book first. It is unavailable on Logos, although Logos carries several other of the authors titles.
A History of New Testament Lexicography (Studies in Biblical Greek)
The price is very high on the paperback, obviously not a mass market topic.
The podcast that reviews the book and discusses the issues
Tool Talk: Limited Lexicons: Our Flawed Friends and Their Future
A quick summary is that today's lexicons are limited in accuracy. They rely heavily on their predecessors without adequate verification. Small numbers of sources are used due to time constraints, when large numbers are available.
I am speculating that lexicography will be computerized in the future and that exhaustive review of literature made possible by computers could contribute to greater accuracy in lexicons and in translations. This is already happening with textual criticism.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
Shalom Kristin,
What do you mean by "an accurate count of words"?
If for example you search for the noun אור "light" in the Hebrew Bible you will get:
- 122 hits (HMT-W4 in Accordance and BHW 4.18 in Logos)
- 121 hits (LHB in Logos)
- 115 hits (BHS in Logos and MT-ETCBC in Accordance)
All of these are accurate counts and it is not a Logos/Accordance split.
Shalom HJ. van der Wal,
I am sorry for not responding to this earlier, somehow I missed it. Anyway, what I mean by "accurate" is actually "consistent." I have been using Accordance's HMT-W4 for years, and have recorded word counts according to the Accordance lex. So I would record אור as 122. I agree completely that a case could be made for why 121 or 115 is more accurate (I assume), but since I have spent years recording it one way, it would be sheer chaos to start recording it another way. One thing I am wondering though, in Logos, is there a way to easily see the hits discrepancy between BHW 4.18 and BHS? I am curious where the 7 hit discrepancy occurs.
Frank Jones said:Kristin, You might not want to do this but I would be interested to see if you can re-run (say, 5?) of your last research runs in both Logos and Accordance to see how they match/don't match. Searches are pretty quick in both programs. If you continued in Accordance but also ran it in duplicate in Logos I wonder if your confidence would diminish or increase? You might have already done this however.
Hi Frank,
Likewise, I somehow didn't see this until just now. Ya, I actually have already been running random searches comparing the two. While I have truly just been running random words, so this isn't some sort of technical analysis, my impression is that in the NT Accordance and Logos seem to agree 95% or so of the time. So they normally agree, but the problem is that there isn't a rhyme or rhythm to when the Accordance / Logos discrepancies occur, and that is the main issue. If, hypothetically, I had a list that said "here are the 58 words which are filed differently in Accordance and Logos," then I could be aware of those words and continue with confidence. However, there isn't such a list, and after I discover a discrepancy, I don't know if this is nearing the end of the list of discrepancies, or just scratching the surface. Also, while I know that the Accordance HMT-W4 is supposedly the same as the BHW 4.18 in Logos, I don't know if there would be discrepancies anyway. After all, in the NT I am using NA28 in both programs, yet finding these issues.
Given that I need an accurate count (and that functionally means a "consistent" count, which matches the one I have used for years), I think Mark Allison is correct that I should stick to Accordance for my lexical work. So while I would say my confidence in the Logos lemma decreased after running searches, I feel more at peace about it after what Mark said. I think the key is that I need to do lexes in Accordance (and their User Bible), and just appreciate Logos for the true advantages it does have, such as the fact that it has ANET. I admit this is concerning though, as the reason I decided to get Logos was sort of as a precautionary measure, so that just in case something happened to Accordance (and I truly hope nothing happens), that I could just continue my work in Logos. However, seeing this "lemma / lexeme" issue, I obviously can't do that. So hopefully Accordance sticks around so I can keep working.0 -
Kristin said:
but the problem is that there isn't a rhyme or rhythm to when the Accordance / Logos discrepancies occur,
I would expect it to be predominantly suppletive inflections or dialectic differences e.g.
[quote]
Verbs
- εἰμί (eimi): "to be"
- Present: εἰμί, εἶ, ἐστίν
- Imperfect: ἦν
- Future: ἔσομαι
- Aorist: ἐγενόμην
- φέρω (phero): "to bear, carry"
- Present: φέρω, φέρεις, φέρει, etc.
- Aorist: ἤνεγκα, ἤνεγκας, ἤνεγκεν, etc.
Nouns
- ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
- Masculine nominative singular: ἄνθρωπος
- Feminine nominative singular: γυνή (gyne)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 - εἰμί (eimi): "to be"
-
MJ. Smith said:
Nouns
- ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
- Masculine nominative singular: ἄνθρωπος
- Feminine nominative singular: γυνή (gyne)
Could you clarify what this is? It appears like the two white points are subpoints, but if "man" and "woman" are subpoints of "human" (I guess, I would file these as three separate words...), shouldn't the masc / nom / sg be ἀνὴρ?
0 - ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
-
Kristin said:
(I guess, I would file these as three separate words...)
I can potentially see 2 but not 3 i.e. 2 in which one of them has 2 senses. By subpoint, I assume you mean hyponym i.e. man is a subtype of human. No, the intent was to show forms that showed the suppletive nature of the declension.
Kristin said:shouldn't the masc / nom / sg be ἀνὴρ?
I do see this form in the LXX but it is coded as from lemma ἀνήρ - man or husband. The morphology charts in Logos confirm the form I copied, not the form you suggest. Or from a random grammar Davis, William Hersey. Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Revised and expanded edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.:
Note this lemma is not PIE which is what I know not Greek. I am totally dependent upon what the reference books tell me.
This resource appears to have a list of verbs with suppletion.
[quote]
An obelus denotes a form apparently not older than the Hellenistic age. When placed on the extreme left it means that the whole verb is late. Suppletives are enclosed in square brackets.
James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Accidence and Word-Formation., vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963–), 225.
I don't have an equivalent for nouns in my library.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John said:
Not sure if I should post this here, or a separate thread. This thread has inspired me to learn more about Lexicons so i guess it works
I found a podcast called Tool Talk, which discusses various related topics. One particular discussion is about the problems with the existing Greek Lexicons.
This is a very helpful post. I don't have the same research objectives as @Kristin - but this thread has amplified my interest in increasing my effectiveness in using Lexicons, understanding the tagging that is going on and how to use the software more effectively.
I hope that Logos is reading these posts. Since Dr. Heiser is no longer with us and in Logos, I don't know who else leads the discussions in terms of the development of the platform in relation to cutting edge language studies. My concern would be that in an effort to create greater accessibility with the general market, that the momentum gained in recent years with original languages would diminish. Combined with the concerns raised about Accordance's future, this is not a good thing.
Without connecting the dots unfairly, I have been concerned that the 'New Resource Toolbar' featured in v. 36 beta diminishes the current functionality of the inline search toolbar. Those who prefer to engage the software in a text centric point of view, might not see the emphasis on using Search Panel as a positive development. I have expressed a point of view that this is not a step forward in terms of reducing friction in original language studies workflows. I for one, have the current inline search toolbar open all the time when I am engaged in textual studies. Going to the search panel just adds more clicks.
So when it comes to the development of the platform, I hope there are original language studies use case voices being combined along with the others that Logos targets (pastoral, devotional, etc), including the ones that the developers hold, so that Logos can continue to lead the way as it has done in recent years.
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:
Highlight where you want to put the favorite and then, in the context menu, slide it just a little. Favorite is one icon to the right of share, so you can almost see it without moving but not quite. It will show up in your desktop favorites under application -> mobile favorites.
Aha! Thank you!
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
Going to the search panel just adds more clicks.
Typically, this is where hotkeys come in handy. Hotkeys still work the same, right? Also, perhaps I have misunderstood something, but I don't see how the new toolbar requires more clicks. It's one click to the inline search now and also one click to the inline search with the new toolbar. What am I missing?
0
