Prioritize resources by type

This is a definite improvement. I would also like to be able to apply advanced priorities to a collection.

Dreaming of a Faceted Library tab next to a Faceted Prioritization tab (where Prioritization facets correspond to Language & Type combinations used). Tab allows longer Resource titles to appear (some titles need many words to see difference).

When user has not specified prioritization, showing default order (in a different color/font: e.g. Black/Bold for user's choice & Dark Gray/Normal for default) would allow user to see Prioritization order of their Library Resources (so can drag resource from Library to desired Prioritization order). * would appreciate a way to reset Prioritization for a Language & Type combination back to default.

Prioritization category combinations could have "More ..." so Top Ten initially appear, which can be expanded if desired.

Either doing this or having faceted browsing on prioritisation would be a huge bonus. My prioritised resources have become so complicated I've created dummy personal books for each type to try to bring some order to the list.

I hope this is implemented soon. It has been a frustration of mine for years.

Re: Two Separate Modifications

1) The ability to sort/organize the Library Types by more than just the number of works in a subcategory. Add the ability to sort them alphabetically which is the most natural way to look through them
2) Add the ability to created Highlighted Headings for Categories in the Prioritization List. eg. Bible (highlighted yellow) and Commentaries - Single Volume (highlighted light blue) and Commentaries - Series (highlighted light green) and Dictionaries - English and Dictionaries - Greek and Dictionaries - Hebrew. The ability to embed separator lines between sections/books too.

Bible Commentaries in PG include 3 types - Bible Commentary, Bible Notes, Study Bible. And we like to divide them into various categories - Expositional, Exegetical,Application which correspond to the Collections we use in PG. Also, Encyclopedias and Concordances can be used in Topic Guide. So a simple prioritization by Type is not good enough. If standard headings are provided e.g. Bible Commentaries, Bible Dictionaries for the above categories, we need to insert our own headings, particularly for Commentaries.

A default order of standard headings would also prevent some errors e.g.
1. Bibles (type:bible)
- user to prioritize by modern languages and original languages
2. Bible Commentaries (type:Bible Commentary, Bible Notes, Study Bible)
3. Bible Dictionaries (type:Encyclopedia, Bible Concordance)
4. Modern Language Dictionaries (type:dictionary)
5. Lexicons (type:lexicon)
- user to prioritize by original languages
- Greek Septuagint lexicons should follow Greek NT lexicons
- Theological lexicons should follow Analytical lexicons
6. Lectionaries (type:lectionary)
7. Devotionals (type:calendar devotional)
8. Other - e.g. type:Ancient Manuscript

This would be a welcome improvement.

At the very minimum!

A great suggestion!

Technically prioritization works on indexes not resource types , and said indexes are exposed in the information tool , but not the library - yet. Simply exposing those in the library and having us prioritize by index would be much more straightforward and also prevent current hickups like prioritizing a bible that contains a tiny glossary and thus stealing the priority of a bible dictionary 

I see 3 issues in this scope:
1. Prioritise resources within a collection - In Passage guide I have sections to search within collections - It would be good to prioritise these results
2. Prioritise by type within library instead of a LNG priority list. Morris Procter had a workaround with blank PBs to put titles in the priority list but it is clunky
3. A more inituitve way to get tootles for type of resource into the priority list

Logos currently uses a simple linear list to prioritize resources, but it understands each type of resource well and will use each one in its proper place regardless of whether they are mixed with different types. But it would be nice to see a separation of each type of book. 
I use them in the following sequence, even though Logos doesn't have a visible separation: 
* Bible versions; 
* Bibles in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; dictionaries and lexicons; 
* study Bibles; 
* commentaries; 
* symbols of faith (creeds, catechisms, confessions);
* systematic theologies.


If you had a line separating each type it would be useful to visualize.

I need this too. 

This is so basic that I can’t believe they haven’t done this already. 

This would help me organize my resources.

I can't believe that Faithlife has not improved the functionality of this tool.

Excellent suggestion. At present, with a large library the prioritization list is almost unworkable. When type grouping, and personal heading are possible, this will be rich for power users. Especially if the priority list can be condensed to headings or expanded to detail at will.

Yes. This is an important organizational approach and is lacking even in this age of Logos Pro

Yes! This would be immensely useful.

This would be very helpful!

Definitely needs improvement

Please help 1.By Type 2. Insert, not just to the bottom of the list

Yes, this would be a big help

This would help

There is the option of dragging a collection/series of books from the Library to a specific place in the prioritization, but when I want to prioritize just one book in a series of biblical commentaries, I have to click on “Prioritize this book”, it will appear at the bottom of the list of a hundred books that I have prioritized, and I will have to drag it upwards through a hundred books until I reach the place where I want the book to be prioritized. This needs to be improved to make it easier for us. It's terribly bad the way it works today!

I had a different suggestion regarding prioritization here: 
https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/better-prioritization-of-books-and-library-management

this would be an improvement

Crazy that this hasn't been changed yet. This is one of the most confusing parts of the software, and updating this functionality would benefit everyone immensely.

Yes!

The last time Logos looked at redoing the prioritization as part of a major release, the project never got off the design table … this is a surprising intractable problem with many apparent "simple" solutions until you look at the details.