How to make Parallel / Text Compare views not suck: Several Tips
TheWord software does this feature WAY BETTER than Logos and Accordance combined (and it's free). Here's how to parallel and text compare not suck:
- Make the mouse wheel scroll verse by verse. 1 tick = 1 verse. Seriously. Please.
- In Parallel view, every single column should be synced up with the mouse wheel, NOT just the primary text column on the far left. Why does this even behave this way?
- Parallel view: The horizontal alignment method implemented is inferior compared to TheWord. You need to add verse padding below each text to match the longest entry, in order for each verse to ALWAYS be synced on exactly the same horizontal line. The way you do it now makes no sense, and longer/shorter texts never align appropriately when scrolling (they are always slightly offset), unless you use the next verse button. You got it right on text compare mode.
- Text Compare mode is missing the ability for interlinear / morphology / strongs views, etc, that parallel has. Why?
Actually, it doesn't even make sense to have two separate functionalities for Parallel and Text Compare, each with limited features. Just fix parallel mode, and text compare can disappear.
Comments
-
Hi Corey - and welcome to the forums
Corey DeFrancesco said:TheWord software does this feature WAY BETTER than Logos and Accordance combined (and it's free)
I don't use either of the two other products you mention so can only reflect on your points from the perspective of a Logos user
Corey DeFrancesco said:Make the mouse wheel scroll verse by verse. 1 tick = 1 verse. Seriously. Please.
I'm currently looking at this from a Macbook with a trackpad so can't commnt on that
Corey DeFrancesco said:In Parallel view, every single column should be synced up with the mouse wheel, NOT just the primary text column on the far left. Why does this even behave this way?
It's designed to allow you to scroll independently so changing subsequent columns does not affect the position of the text in the first column. This makes it easy, for example, to scroll through linked commentaries without changing the position of the primary text
Corey DeFrancesco said:Parallel view: The horizontal alignment method implemented is inferior compared to TheWord. You need to add verse padding below each text to match the longest entry, in order for each verse to ALWAYS be synced on exactly the same horizontal line.
This would result in very large gaps between verses in Bibles if commentaries were added in as parallel texts
Corey DeFrancesco said:The way you do it now makes no sense, and longer/shorter texts never align appropriately when scrolling (they are always slightly offset), unless you use the next verse button
But it's good to note that the next verse button does do a good job of alignment.
Corey DeFrancesco said:Text Compare mode is missing the ability for interlinear / morphology / strongs views, etc, that parallel has. Why?
The Text Comparison Tool does support the ability to compare interlinears - I'm not sure what a morphology comparison would do as many of the biblical texts are based on the same underlying Greek New Testament (for example)
Graham
0 -
Corey DeFrancesco said:
TheWord software does this feature WAY BETTER than Logos and Accordance combined (and it's free). Here's how to parallel and text compare not suck:
Welcome to the forum Corey!
There has been a growing number of posts on the forum about the text comparison tool. Check out this recent thread:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/224904/1312686.aspx#1312686
In that thread, you will see links to user feedback that @MJ posted, which you can vote on.
In summary, I agree... the text comparison tool needs to be taken to the next level. It has been some time since any real work was invested in it.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
The Text Comparison Tool does support the ability to compare interlinears - I'm not sure what a morphology comparison would do as many of the biblical texts are based on the same underlying Greek New Testament (for example)
The one caveat is that users must be aware that this 'interlinear view' of the tool does not work with all the translations the other view does. (I think you helped me figure out that mystery - I kept bumping into versions that would not appear in the interlinear and did not know way, so I just stopped using this view altogether)
This means I must build text comparison collections with different criteria for each view WITHIN THE SAME TOOL (friendly emphasis added 🙂), which is unnecessary friction and cognitive load.
I am sure this made sense when this tool was first built, but I hope a complete rebuild can be added to our community's wish list. The text comparison tool really feels long in the tooth now.
0 -
I find horizontal Text Compare invaluable; I would like to see it have more flexibility and options (ala Bibleworks' implementation).
0 -
To be fair, your counter to most of my points with your reasons why it is X way isn't really all that great. As you can see, I've specifically chosen to use other software (TheWord) that behaves the way I want it to, and as a result, it's turned me away from Logos (alongside some bad business practices like comment censoring on modules which FaithLife claims are THEIR property, a move to a subscription-based model, the costly schism of app features into tiers that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, the purchase of FaithLife by Cove Hill Partners, and more). Yet another Christian organization that is becoming all about the $$$ and not God. Jesus himself said that you can't serve God and Mammon.
Back on point, give the user some more options. Logos is severely lacking in this regard. The options page looks like something I might find on a cheap mobile app and doesn't even have a proper interface.
I can see both scenarios being useful for a lot of the points I made, but I personally prefer for the app to behave the way I want it to (See TheWord, BibleWorks, eSword implementations, etc).
Blessings0 -
Corey DeFrancesco said:
As you can see, I've specifically chosen to use other software (TheWord) that behaves the way I want it to, and as a result, it's turned me away from Logos (alongside some bad business practices like comment censoring on modules which FaithLife claims are THEIR property, a move to a subscription-based model, the costly schism of app features into tiers that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, the purchase of FaithLife by Cove Hill Partners, and more). Yet another Christian organization that is becoming all about the $$$ and not God. Jesus himself said that you can't serve God and Mammon.
Feedback on why potential customers do not use Logos is valuable to Logos but given that you have such a negative view of the company that is clearly not based on a long-term relationship, I'm uncertain of your purpose. For example, I in two decades with their software have never seen them "comment censoring on modules" ... note modules isn't Logos terminology. I am guessing you mean resources and/or features. I have never seen complaints about "costly schism of app features into tiers" as most of us appreciate being able to purchase features we will actually use. If you ever want to learn how to actually use Logos or even just to learn what features Logos has or how it supports particular activities, drop into the forums again.
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 -
MJ. Smith said:
For example, I in two decades with their software have never seen them "comment censoring on modules" ... note modules isn't Logos terminology. I am guessing you mean resources and/or features. I have never seen complaints about "costly schism of app features into tiers" as most of us appreciate being able to purchase features we will actually use.
I agree on Faithlife being over-abundently patient. I've been a critic, often excessively (but I'm sure I'm right!). Even when the conversations go off the rails, the FL person tries to just calm things down.
The tiers question ... I don't really know ... assignment of features vs tier cost. I suspect that'll take some time. Faithlife likes to measure (gee).
But regarding Text Comparison and MultiBooks, the flexibility and shear power in use should caution about too much 'improvement'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
In response to MJ, I am allowed to have any opinion on any company and their business practices I choose and shouldn't be shamed or censored for it in any manner, as long as I am upholding truth and biblical principles. And yet, this company claims ownership over individual reviews on modules (as an example), and deletes them as they see fit? Come on. You claim ignorance of this, but it's right next to the write review line, double check it, with the link to FaithLife's terms of service. Sorry, that's wrong. Amazon does the same thing and it's unethical.
"I have never seen complaints about "costly schism of app features into tiers" as most of us appreciate being able to purchase features we will actually use."
That's odd because I found several threads/YouTube videos on this topic with a quick Google search. Surely can see the lack of logic in this statement. No good application divides its software into pay-for-features. Imagine a 3D modeling software like Cinema4D trying to charge you extra to create a cube, rectangle, and a triangle, or a PDF reader charging you extra to read more than 10 headings, or to be able to see a table of contents. The mentality is literally insane. Further, Logos' whole business model revolves around selling their users thousands of books in package format, 95% or so which the user will probably never use. Many of which, mind you, are not available for individual sale.
Anyway, I didn't intend for this to be a hate or venting thread. Logos is currently the leading app for the Bible study field with the most resources available, and it seems I'm forced to use it to get certain copies of works that I desire to have in digital format, and I have no other alternative. With that said, I do hope that they choose to improve some of the features I need, as stated in the original post. I've used it long enough in my trial to learn that it cannot do what I desire. As far as learning the other features is concerned, that'll come naturally I'm sure, but thank you.0
