Love all the new resources...but

This is a real problem, isn't it? From the users point of view we need those links to get the best use from our existing resources. From Logos' point of view they need the money from new resources.

Personally, I'd like to see the price of new resources reflect the work required to find links to the new resource in old resources, and added in. For many resources that wouldn't be a huge amount of work. A quick search in your library will bring up the references, and then it's a case of manually adding links.

That said, for important titles, I'd also like Logos to subsidise this through a central 'pot' created from (e.g.) a 1% levy on all sales. The Talmud is a good example of a resource which will cost many thousands of dollars to add links to, simply because there are so many. We probably couldn't afford the resource if we had to pay for it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171318#Comment_171318

Another issue that they've mentioned is that they are always working on adding links to old resources but they don't want to force us all to redownload our entire library to get the updated links every time a new resource (or three or four) ships. So they will keep revisiting old resources on some sort of a rotation and only pushing revised resources with links fixed through the pipeline every three months or so. The last time they did a resource update was a few months ago, so I'm guessing we're due for another one soon. But if I recall, they only updated 100 or so resource that time. That means it's gonig to be a long time to wait for our entire library to get its links fixed. I've got 4000+ books in mine. That'll be 40 cycles of updates, by which time I'm sure there will be a mass of new resources, requiring still more new links in old resources. And on and on it goes...

If anyone has any brilliant ideas for a solution to this, I'm sure Logos will be willing to listen.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171321#Comment_171321

Simple, Employ me, I would be happy to do it [:D]

I also agree that with any new resourse releace, older resources linking to it should also be updated for that enhanced experience...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171329#Comment_171329

Simple, Employ me, I would be happy to do it

+2 [H]

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171331#Comment_171331

+1 [Y]

John Graves

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171344#Comment_171344

I posted about this also yesterday. But the resources I was using with bad linking are Baker Exegetical and NiGTC these are pretty new aren't they? Very frustrating for me personally.

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171321#Comment_171321

The last time they did a resource update was a few months ago, so I'm guessing we're due for another one soon.

And when they do, I'm guessing there'll be as many or more complaints about the download as there are "thank you"s for the updated content, based on our track record. [:(]

If anyone has any brilliant ideas for a solution to this, I'm sure Logos will be willing to listen.

That's the trick isn't it? Balance the downloads with the need for content upgrades?

And thanks, Rosie for your gentleness in reminding us of the size of the problem!

Why am I posting? I'm a little concerned at the tone of the posts, given that Logos is really caught in a conflicting needs from users.

Brilliant answers?

Not here. But maybe there could be something similar to the "report a typo" function--"Report a Link" that'd allow us to establish the link in our resources, but also send it (or at least report it) to Logos for potential inclusion for everyone. If the function to establish a link between resources will exist in the PBB, maybe it could be adapted for this "Report a Link" function.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171404#Comment_171404

Not here. But maybe there could be something similar to the "report a typo" function--"Report a Link" that'd allow us to establish the link in our resources, but also send it (or at least report it) to Logos for potential inclusion for everyone. If the function to establish a link between resources will exist in the PBB, maybe it could be adapted for this "Report a Link" function.

I always use the Report a Typo function for these (as well as for links that point to the wrong place). Then in the "Note" section I point out the lack of hyperlink to the correct resource.

The more of these they get, the more they'll know which ones we think need the most attention.

Michael McLane

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171411#Comment_171411

I always use the Report a Typo function for these (as well as for links that point to the wrong place). Then in the "Note" section I point out the lack of hyperlink to the correct resource.

The more of these they get, the more they'll know which ones we think need the most attention.

Good idea, Richard. Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171329#Comment_171329

Simple, Employ me, I would be happy to do it

I also agree that with any new resourse releace, older resources linking to it should also be updated for that enhanced experience...

+1 [Y]

I think they'd need to hire a whole army of eager people like you to stay on top of this. Imagine yourself sitting down with just one volume of Anchor Bible Dictionary (it's got 6 volumes on the order of 1000 pages each). Then consider that it is peppered with abbreviated references such as (ANET, 307) or JBL 83: 298–302. In some cases later references within one article assume the name of the work since it was mentioned earlier and only give the section/paragraph reference. We know about this from Scripture references (e.g., "particularly...in 3:13 and 1:4, 13; and the relationship between 3:2, 16") but it happens with other kinds of works, too. You'd have to carefully read through the entire volume, finding each reference, figuring out what it's actually referring to -- I'm sure there'd be a big table of abbreviations to help you (ANET is Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, which I have in Logos but ABD links don't work; JBL is Journal of Biblical Literature, still coming in pre-pub, but it would be great if all the links in my existing library just worked as soon as it ships), generating the appropriate tag for it, and editing that into the file, very carefully proof-checking your work. This would be very time-consuming and laborious (and probably boring/tedious) work. It would probably take you a couple of months to get through one volume. Now multiply that by six and that's just one of the 10,000+ resources in Logos's catalogue. Granted it's one of the ones that's more heavily loaded with links. But now you begin to see the magnitude of the job they've got ahead of them. And believe me, they do have people assigned to this very task who are working through the backlog. But as others point out, this work does not bring in any revenue for them. So I think it's hard for them to prioritize it. But if we can impress upon them how much extra value it gives us in our Logos libraries to have all the linking, and that we'd be more willing to shout from the rooftops about how awesome our Logos library is, and encourage them that it would bring in more revenue in the long run, maybe that would help their motivation to keep plugging away at this, and assign more people to the task.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171404#Comment_171404

Why am I posting? I'm a little concerned at the tone of the posts, given that Logos is really caught in a conflicting needs from users.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The reason for our investment in Logos is substantially due to the way that the resource link with one another. The difficulty here is that we just don't know what Logos is doing about this. We've had some reassurance that major works like AYBD are being updated, but we don't know the policy on new resources.

What we need to know is:

Will old books link to new resources? That is, when a new book is issued, is it normal policy for an employee to search for references to that books in other resources, and add links to it?
Will new books link to old resources? That is, when a new book issued, is it normal policy for links to be created to all existing resources, or to just some of them?

In fairness, the answer to (2) often seems to be "yes". I just checked Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God, and that seems to link in all the right places. I also checked entries in the Zondervan bundle which seemed also to link correctly. This is necessary, but nonetheless really appreciated.

But the answer to (1) seems to be an unspoken "no", except in very limited circumstances. If so, that's a real shame, and one that diminishes the value of Logos. My concern is that if this work isn't done when resources are released, it will never be done. If it's too much work now, it's not going to get any easier with the passage of time.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171420#Comment_171420

Rosie,

I'm afraid that the majority of books that we have downloaded since the release of Logos 4 have been books that needed to be modified to work correctly with Logos 4. I have seen very few rebuilt books with updated tagging come through the pipeline.

With over 11,000 titles to redo, I'm afraid that the task is overwhelming for Logos to do. I have submitted typos from more than 5 years ago that still have not be revisited. Just playing around with the search function, one can see how much work needs to be done just on typos, let alone updated tagging.

Logos has always done a great job on their bible and original language databases. I am hoping for the same treatment with the rest of our books in the near future. Bob said almost a year ago that they were going to retag the library, but I haven't heard any updates about it since then.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171433#Comment_171433

Imagine yourself sitting down with just one volume of Anchor Bible Dictionary

We understand that, and (within reason), we're willing to wait. But it's much more difficult to understand why the Pillar Commentary on Ephesians contains around 50 references to Stott's BST commentary on the same book, but none of them are linked, despite the BST being available in Logos for three years. Indeed, just looking through the bibliography of that commentary, not a single resource appears to be linked, even though many of them (ICC, WBC, AB, Calvin, NICNT, Hendriksen, Schnackenburg, NIVAC, Westcott, Stott, NBC) are available in Logos.

That's not a mistake, that appears to be a deliberate policy (at least with this resource). More worryingly, several of those commentaries were available in Logos before this resource was created.

Paul N

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171438#Comment_171438

what if there was a way for interested Logos users to do "packets" of work in large resources and entire resources worth of tagging and then submit them to Logos for proofing. Sort of like how you can allow your computer to help processing information for the SETI project. I guess there would need to be some training and some direction in a project such as this.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171444#Comment_171444

what if there was a way for interested Logos users to do "packets" of work in large resources and entire resources worth of tagging and then submit them to Logos for proofing. Sort of like how you can allow your computer to help processing information for the SETI project. I guess there would need to be some training and some direction in a project such as this.

So far, Logos' attempts at this have not proved cost effective. When these packets are submitted they still have to be proof-read by someone in Logos, so that Logos can maintain it's standard of quality.

Kevin A. Purcell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171447#Comment_171447

Isn't the reason why having the public domain books in Logos costs them money for reasons like this? They spend extra time making sure this kind of thing is taken care of. At least that is the argument. But if it is not actually happening it takes away the argument and makes me wonder again, why are public domain books so expensive in Logos when they are free in other applications?

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171447#Comment_171447

I don't know what steps are needed or how Logos implements the resource linking for new works, but I would think it is a bit complex. First, we have to define what we mean by "new resources" and "old resources." By "old" and "new" do we mean the year when these resources were written? Or, the year Logos digitally published them? A resource that Logos makes available for purchase today may be one that was originally penned 100 years ago. Would I expect such a resource to link to my resources that were published in print 20 years ago? I don't see how that is possible. Perhaps I am not understanding the arguments here. Now, I do understand the need for newer resources to have proper links to older resources. I don't know how Logos does this, what is involved.

Also, what do we mean by links? Should we have a taxonomy of elements for links? Are we referring to other printed body of works, Internet databases, websites, wikis, etc? Bible verses, I think, are the most commonly linked elements. They are linked to whatever is your preferred translation. Other elements include references to scholarly commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and books. Anything else?

Paul Newsome's suggestion is interesting because I imagine that it takes considerable computing man-hours to search resources, find possible references to other resources, and record such findings. Logos can conduct a study on how a person would do this manually; then, develop a software program to help automate the tedious tasks. Humans can alpha test or beta test the results. One challenge would be the database structure to store all the findings - i.e. resources that need linking, exact locations, name of linked elements, etc. The amount of data would be overwhelming and need to be in a useful format. If we, the user, can somehow participate with Logos in the process of linking elements between resources, a la SETI, I would think that this would save some time and computing cost, even if Logos staff needs to review the results.

It's a challenging task for sure.

John Graves

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171498#Comment_171498

Also, what do we mean by links?

What I meant by links is simply being able to click on the resource being footnoted in the text of the book I am reading and being taken there, especially langauge tools such as BDAG

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171436#Comment_171436

There is a lot of work that needs to be done with both typos and links. While I understand the concerns about bandwidth from users that have a monthly cap and/or a slow download speed, it will take eons to get this all fixed and updated if they trickle the corrections out at a pace of a few every 3 months...and that's assuming that that's what the resource updates are doing. If they are instead just updating resources from Logos 3 to Logos 4 format, then when can we expect typo and link correction updates?

I have stumbled across numerous typos in my reading, but unfortunately haven't reported any. Mainly it is because I do almost all of my reading on Blackberry and (more recently) iPad and so have no way to report typos...but I have to admit, there is also this nagging thought in the back of my mind of the anecdotes of people reporting typos 5 years ago that haven't yet been fixed that makes me wonder if it does any good to report them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171498#Comment_171498

I don't know what steps are needed or how Logos implements the resource linking for new works, but I would think it is a bit complex. First, we have to define what we mean by "new resources" and "old resources." By "old" and "new" do we mean the year when these resources were written? Or, the year Logos digitally published them? A resource that Logos makes available for purchase today may be one that was originally penned 100 years ago. Would I expect such a resource to link to my resources that were published in print 20 years ago?

We're not talking about adding hyperlinks the way a Wikipedia article might have, which would direct you to another page about that topic. We're talking about actual citations of another work that were embedded in one work. A footnote or a parenthetical reference within the text. And yes, of course in the print versions these would never have been citations of books that would be published later, only books that had been published previously. But in many cases, Logos brings out in digital format a resource that is older in print after it has already produced digital versions of resources that cite that older resource. If I later buy the original source that some commentary I already owned was referring to and would like to go look up the quote in context, I'd want to be able to click on the citation in my commentary and jump to the appropriate spot in the original source. This will be particularly true of journal articles and ancient texts. The Talmuds which are currently under development will be a huge benefit to have links become live for. But unless someone goes back through and retags all the old resources which had references to the Talmuds, this isn't going to happen. I do recall a Logos employee writing a post about how they do anticipate doing the work for the Talmuds in particular; this is one of the selling points that made the Talmud such an attractive resource to buy and why it soared through the 100% mark so quickly. So I do hope they keep their promise.

They probably decide on which other resources to add links to/from based on the number of customers who own them. But I do recall some disappointment being expressed over some recent new resources that were published with dead links to existing resources in Logos format. That seems very wrong to me. The reason given was that they didn't want to delay shipment any longer to get the tagging done, but the problem is, once it's out the door, the motivation to do the tagging goes down exponentially.

I also seem to recall they were looking into ways of making tagging a more automated process, but it's extremely tricky because different authors will use different abbreviations for commonly known works, and they'd have to anticipate all of those possiblities ahead of time to properly automate it. It still would take a human being reading through every book to look for all the possible variants. So automation wouldn't save a huge amount of time. They'e also said that crowdsourcing isn't really an option for this kind of work. However I think they could be more creative and open to this possibility. It is solveable. For example, a user could propose a link by creating it within their own library using a tool Logos could provide. It would not be released to the public until it got 5 votes from other users saying "yes, this link is correct." Users could peruse the list of proposed user-generated link additions every week or so looking for ones to vote for. There would be a way within Logos to bring up this list (it could be downloaded from the server on demand) without it actually yet affecting the resources in your Library that the links were between. Logos is already crowdsourcing a lot of their QA with the beta test program, so it seems to me they could crowdsource a bit of their QA for tagging in this way, too.

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171512#Comment_171512

But in many cases, Logos brings out in digital format a resource that is older in print after it has already produced digital versions of resources that cite that older resource.

I understand now.

It still would take a human being reading through every book to look for all the possible variants.

If I recall, researchers have used software to analyze ancient languages. I can only imagine (with total ignorance on how this would work) software can help identify expected and unexpected abbreviations?

The great challenge is to help Logos make its software reach its full potential, within time and budget constraints.

Add: I understand what is meant by "links" - I was being rhetorical and reflective.

nicky crane

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171411#Comment_171411

Not here. But maybe there could be something similar to the "report a typo" function--"Report a Link" that'd allow us to establish the link in our resources, but also send it (or at least report it) to Logos for potential inclusion for everyone. If the function to establish a link between resources will exist in the PBB, maybe it could be adapted for this "Report a Link" function.

I always use the Report a Typo function for these (as well as for links that point to the wrong place). Then in the "Note" section I point out the lack of hyperlink to the correct resource.

The more of these they get, the more they'll know which ones we think need the most attention.

So do I[H]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171435#Comment_171435

But the answer to (1) seems to be an unspoken "no", except in very limited circumstances.

I'm not sure this is established. With a good coding structure they can code the links for resources not yet available through Logos. And the explanation for the current limitations on the topic search is that the recoding is not done. The real question in my mind is what will be done regarding third part and discontinued items.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171538#Comment_171538

The real question in my mind is what will be done regarding third part and discontinued items.

I believe on the newsgroups this was raised by Logos as a reason for links not being there and typos not being corrected - it was outside of their control.

Yet when L4 was released these were amongst the resources that required updating to work with L4 and the updating was done so is it really outside of their control ? Will these resources be corrected ?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171538#Comment_171538

The real question in my mind is what will be done regarding third part and discontinued items.

I believe on the newsgroups this was raised by Logos as a reason for links not being there and typos not being corrected - it was outside of their control.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171451#Comment_171451

Isn't the reason why having the public domain books in Logos costs them money for reasons like this? They spend extra time making sure this kind of thing is taken care of. At least that is the argument. But if it is not actually happening it takes away the argument and makes me wonder again, why are public domain books so expensive in Logos when they are free in other applications?

This is a fair question Kevin. On the one hand we say Logos costs extra because of all the great tagging but on the other hand we say oh yea the links aren't all there because its too much work and too complicated for Logos to do them all.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171547#Comment_171547

I'd like all links to all Logos resources from all Logos resources to work. I am guessing this is unrealistic. It is disappointing when a new release does not support earlier releases. (I can understand the reverse.)

Perhaps the good folks at Logos could tell us what resources are being scheduled for updates and they might even solicit input on which ones we'd most like to see get taken care of.

I imagine part of the trouble is knowing which of Logos' 11,000 resources contain links to the new work that need to be made active. Then, in some cases, perhaps a hundred or more volumes would need to be updated with thousands of references for the addition of just one new resource. That's daunting, and think of the downloading after this is done. Somehow major works need to get this treatment. Deciding which ones are the major ones may be the problem.

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171435#Comment_171435

Will old books link to new resources? That is, when a new book is issued, is it normal policy for an employee to search for references to that books in other resources, and add links to it?

the answer to (1) seems to be an unspoken "no", except in very limited circumstances. If so, that's a real shame, and one that diminishes the value of Logos. My concern is that if this work isn't done when resources are released, it will never be done. If it's too much work now, it's not going to get any easier with the passage of time.

This point is valid & on target.

That's why if there is a real solution out there, it'll probably have to involve harnessing user energy to add those links (so we can use them; I suspect we'll always have more energy for doing that) AND reducing their workload (allowing us to add the links for them)... ergo some way ala PBB to allow us to add the link + share the link with them, so they can give it back to us in an updated resource at some point in the future.

Why am I posting? I'm a little concerned at the tone of the posts, given that Logos is really caught in a conflicting needs from users.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair.

No real disagreement with you... [:)]To me, it just looked like we starting to criticize Logos for something that we (though a different part of our group) would then turn around & criticize them for if they did add the links & sent them down the network pipeline to us--no matter when they sent it down the network pipeline .

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171577#Comment_171577

I imagine part of the trouble is knowing which of Logos' 11,000 resources contain links to the new work that need to be made active.

I would suggest that a good coding structure and a simple not-found process makes "making the links active" a non-event. It is the equivalent of adding a new resource in your library "activating" the links to that resource which has already been tagged.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171588#Comment_171588

With the exception of Rosie "I own more Logos books than Bob Pritchett himself" Perera ([:P]), My guess is there are many people who never will have all the money to buy all the Logos material they want. Perhaps Logos could exchange tagging labor for Logos resources.

I know if I got even $2,000 dollars worth of Logos books as payment, that would not take away any dollars I plan to spend out of my own pocket. It would only serve to give me that many more resources, and make me very, very happy. Use the Logos Army to tag them suckers. [H]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171594#Comment_171594

Perhaps Logos could exchange tagging labor for Logos resources.

I'm sure there are lots of us who would be willing to do some tagging in exchange for Logos resources, but they'd probably have to hire a manager (wrangler) just to herd us cats, and someone else to clean all our litter boxes. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171600#Comment_171600

Perhaps Logos could exchange tagging labor for Logos resources.

I'm sure there are lots of us who would be willing to do some tagging in exchange for Logos resources, but they'd probably have to hire a manager (wrangler) just to herd us cats, and someone else to clean all our litter boxes.

As much as my hand is up and would love to see that happen I think they have tried collaborative editing projects in the past and it hasn't worked. At the end of the day they need to have someone go back and check all the work... if the didn't I guess we could then complain about our own mistakes in linking to wrong resource or wrong page or reference....[*-)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171577#Comment_171577

I imagine part of the trouble is knowing which of Logos' 11,000 resources contain links to the new work that need to be made active.

Yes, but we don't expect them to winkle out every possible link. We do want them to try. If I can run a search (for example) for Stott NEAR "message of Ephesians" that returns 24 books in my library. Opening up each book in turn takes a few minutes. Then searching that book for possible references to a shorter version of that resource takes another few minutes (in the ICC commentary on Ephesians, for example, Stott's commentary is referred to only as Stott, 267-75. In that case I'd need to search ICC for all occurrences of Stott (there are 11 of them). In other resources (such as Boice on Ephesians) I could just search footnotes (35 more results). Across my entire library there are probably around 150 possible links, which suggests maybe 250-300 across all of Logos' resources. To be conscientious you'd have to check the following footnotes for ibid.'s too, which adds on a little more time.

I appreciate that Logos' book editing software is entirely separate from it's search engine which means edits are not quite as straightforward as reporting typos, for example. I'm also aware that editing 50 or so books, and adding a total of 250-300 links isn't an afternoon's work, but it's probably only a week's work.

Clearly for a very few other resources it's going to be a lot more (the Talmud is an obvious example), but for the majority it's going to be a lot less, and for some (particularly new books) it's going to be none at all.

When you consider all the scanning, proof-reading and tagging that is already involved in producing a title, I'm not at all convinced that it would add much in percentage terms to either time or cost to do this extra week's work.

PS: For those not clear about the work involved in bringing a title to press, these links may help. That's why I'm suggesting a week or two's additional work wouldn't add much in percentage terms:

Ward Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171512#Comment_171512

... They'e also said that crowdsourcing isn't really an option for this kind of work. However I think they could be more creative and open to this possibility. It is solveable. For example, a user could propose a link by creating it within their own library using a tool Logos could provide. It would not be released to the public until it got 5 votes from other users saying "yes, this link is correct." Users could peruse the list of proposed user-generated link additions every week or so looking for ones to vote for. There would be a way within Logos to bring up this list (it could be downloaded from the server on demand) without it actually yet affecting the resources in your Library that the links were between. Logos is already crowdsourcing a lot of their QA with the beta test program, so it seems to me they could crowdsource a bit of their QA for tagging in this way, too.

It sounds like a wicked problem due to non-linear scaling. Someform of crowdsourcing is the only likely sol'n--other than status quo.

That said, in a year a year or two I'd be willing to work for Logos as their CLO (Chief Link Officer) and whack away at them for a slightly nominal fee [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171602#Comment_171602

As much as my hand is up and would love to see that happen I think they have tried collaborative editing projects in the past and it hasn't worked. At the end of the day they need to have someone go back and check all the work

I'm not convinced by this. With the right tools, crowd-sourcing is an ideal way to develop electronic texts. Imagine (for example) that the PBB software was extended so that users could work on new texts. We could request certain sections to proof-read, or add links to, etc. Each section would be given to multiple users, and where all users agree the software assume the document is correct. Where users disagree, it's given to more people until either (a) a consensus is reached, or (b) an employee intervenes. Users who contribute a certain amount of work, receive the completed book for free.

I'm not suggesting I'd want all my texts done this way, but particularly for PD stuff it would be ideal. After all, it's the way ancestry.com are digitising millions of documents (some of them hand-written!). With enough users, the model works. We're not as big as Ancestry, but it's going to be far more edifying and relevant proof-reading Barnes' Notes than it would be transcribing millions of records in the hope that one might be of your ancestor.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171610#Comment_171610

With the right tools, crowd-sourcing is an ideal way to develop electronic texts.

Personally I would be comfortable with this for PD....just thinking along the lines of Logos model as it stands rather than what I would like it to be, and in particular the links we are talking about. in and to resources like BDAG, M&M, Anchor etc..... but more than happy for them to prove me wrong on the PD stuff

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171608#Comment_171608

When you consider all the scanning, proof-reading and tagging that is already involved in producing a title, I'm not at all convinced that it would add much in percentage terms to either time or cost to do this extra week's work.

If that is the case then why isn't it being done already? I realize this doesn't fix older resources that suddenly get opportunities for tagging with a new resources, but it should take care of all new ones with existing resources to link to. If that isn't being done (as reported), it should be.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171625#Comment_171625

Is it time for Logos speaks ? .... they're the only ones that can truly answer our concerns about whether we are getting what we are told we are paying for or not and why there are apparently so many missing links in newly released resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171625#Comment_171625

When you consider all the scanning, proof-reading and tagging that is already involved in producing a title, I'm not at all convinced that it would add much in percentage terms to either time or cost to do this extra week's work.

If that is the case then why isn't it being done already? I realize this doesn't fix older resources that suddenly get opportunities for tagging with a new resources, but it should take care of all new ones with existing resources to link to. If that isn't being done (as reported), it should be.

I have a theory that the new resources that are particularly problematic are the ones not published (and therefore possibly not produced) by Logos, such as the Theological Journals and IVP offerings. As for the old resources I simply think that Logos have a list of 500 things they'd like to do, but only the time and money to do 200 of them, and this job didn't make the cut (just like the incredibly simple job of correcting bibliographic errors doesn't seem to make the cut). But it's only a theory, and as Andrew says an official response is the only way to know for certain.

Bob Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171629#Comment_171629

Is it time for Logos speaks ?

Sorry... traveling... again!

We're very much aware of the need to improve linking in the books. We're working on updating the books on aregular basis, working through them in the order of how many people they have and how much improvement they need. The first priority is metadata, then "data type" linking, then (lastly) the big problem: linking to books without data types. (In other words, linking bibliographies and references to books by name and page number.)

We've invested a lot in this last problem, and are presently finishing pseudo-automated tools to help facilitate that linking. Then we'll be able to do yet another pass to light up those links.

We also hold some updated books for "batch release", to minimize downloading/re-indexing sessions. Look for continued improvements over the next six months.

-- Bob

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/172370#Comment_172370

Is it time for Logos speaks ?

Sorry... traveling... again!

We're very much aware of the need to improve linking in the books. We're working on updating the books on aregular basis, working through them in the order of how many people they have and how much improvement they need. The first priority is metadata, then "data type" linking, then (lastly) the big problem: linking to books without data types. (In other words, linking bibliographies and references to books by name and page number.)

We've invested a lot in this last problem, and are presently finishing pseudo-automated tools to help facilitate that linking. Then we'll be able to do yet another pass to light up those links.

We also hold some updated books for "batch release", to minimize downloading/re-indexing sessions. Look for continued improvements over the next six months.

-- Bob

Thank you, Bob!

How about typo fixing? There are people reporting that there have been typos they reported 5 years ago which still haven't been fixed yet. Are those on a similar schedule of only fixing typos in the books owned by the greatest number of people first? Fixing typos seems like the kind of work that could be done by a summer intern, and one person could probably blow through a big backlog of them in a month or two. Maybe I'm grossly underestimating how many of those "Report Typo" reports you guys get, and maybe some of them are getting fixed. But I haven't noticed any of the ones I've reported in the past year being fixed yet. I've kept track of them all with a special highlighting style.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/171610#Comment_171610

crowd-sourcing is an ideal way to develop electronic texts.

Mark, it's not your post that raised this question ... but you had an easy quote to capture. How many of us on this thread assisted the CCEL in developing their library? What does that experience teach you about crowd sourcing?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/172370#Comment_172370

Is it time for Logos speaks ?

Sorry... traveling... again!

We're very much aware of the need to improve linking in the books. We're working on updating the books on aregular basis, working through them in the order of how many people they have and how much improvement they need. The first priority is metadata, then "data type" linking, then (lastly) the big problem: linking to books without data types. (In other words, linking bibliographies and references to books by name and page number.)

We've invested a lot in this last problem, and are presently finishing pseudo-automated tools to help facilitate that linking. Then we'll be able to do yet another pass to light up those links.

We also hold some updated books for "batch release", to minimize downloading/re-indexing sessions. Look for continued improvements over the next six months.

-- Bob

Thanks for the response. I felt as if we were running around in circles of personal speculation and assumption.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/172469#Comment_172469

crowd-sourcing is an ideal way to develop electronic texts.

Mark, it's not your post that raised this question ... but you had an easy quote to capture. How many of us on this thread assisted the CCEL in developing their library? What does that experience teach you about crowd sourcing?

I didn't, but I'm sure many well-meaning and earnest, diligent people did. But the texts out there are on the whole...um...full of typos. There's just no quality control when you've got that many people -- volunteers, no less -- working on something.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/172560#Comment_172560

I didn't, but I'm sure many well-meaning and earnest, diligent people did. But the texts out there are on the whole...um...full of typos.

I did and your evaluation of the results is accurate. My sister is a professional proof-reader - believe me, tagging and proof-reading require very specific skills that most of us don't have.