Improvements to Smart Search ranking
Today, we shipped an improvement to Smart Search ranking that will improve the number of highly relevant results you get at the top of your search results.
The new algorithm results in a 21.3% rise in the average relevancy score in the top 5 results, and the chance that the top result is highly relevant has more than doubled. That should give a substantial boost in ranking quality. Improving the quality of Smart Search should also help Smart Synopsis be a little smarter, too.
We're continuing to improve Smart Search relevance and have built several internal prototypes that deliver even bigger improvements. However, it will take us a little while until those further improvements are ready to deploy for everyone.
The subscription model gives us the opportunity to continually improve features like Smart Search, so thank you to everyone who subscribes to Logos and helps us make these improvements.
Comments
-
This is great. When will be be available, now that you've "shipped" it?
0 -
I tried a few searches on topics I'm a bit familiar with and the answers seem a bit "smarter" now, as far as I can remember earlier answers. But I'm not 100% sure.
0 -
It's available now. Sorry for the jargon!
0 -
I saved some of my old Smart searches in Notes to verify if Smart Search improve over time. Here is an Old Result (2024-12-26) compared to a New Result (2025-02-05).
Why is research on the Names of God necessary?
Old Answer
Research on the Names of God is necessary because these names serve as a key to understanding God's nature, attributes, and relationship with His people[1][2]. In biblical usage, names are not mere labels but describe the essential character of the subject[3]. The names of God, found throughout the Old and New Testaments, reveal aspects of His power, authority, and holiness[2]. They are considered personal disclosures, bridging the gap between the transcendent and immanent nature of God[2]. Understanding these names is crucial for interpreting numerous biblical passages[4]. The names include primary names like Elohim (the Strong One), Adonai (Master), and Jehovah (the self-existent One), as well as combinations that provide deeper insights into God's character[4]. In the New Testament, God's name is most clearly manifested in Jesus Christ, who claimed to have revealed the name of God[2]. The study of God's names is thus integral to comprehending the doctrine of God and His self-revelation to humanity[1][2].
[1] John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, New Edition., vol. 1 (Tegg & Company, 1839), 37.
[2] Brad Creed, “Names of God,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1171.
[3] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 539.
[4] William Evans and S. Maxwell Coder, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Enl. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 307.
New Answer
Research on the Names of God is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of biblical passages and God's nature. The Bible uses various names for God, each revealing important aspects of His character and attributes[1][2]. These names are not arbitrary but carry significant meaning, providing insights into God's ways of dealing with humanity and His self-revelation[2][3]. Understanding these names is crucial for proper interpretation of Scripture, as they appear in hundreds of passages and often arise from believers' experiences with God[1][2]. The names of God are anthropomorphic, allowing humans to comprehend and relate to the Divine, while also emphasizing the privilege of knowing God's name[3]. This knowledge is essential for sanctifying God's name and adhering to biblical legislation concerning its use[3]. The study of God's names, particularly the primary names Elohim, Adonai, and Jehovah, along with their combinations, reveals profound truths about God's nature, such as His strength, self-existence, and supremacy[1][4][5].
[1] William Evans and S. Maxwell Coder, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Enl. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 307.
[2] Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005), 53.
[3] Richard C. Gamble, God’s Mighty Acts in the Old Testament, vol. 1, The Whole Counsel of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 293.
[4] G. T. Manley and F. F. Bruce, “God, Names of,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood et al. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 420.
[5] William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, Volumes 1-3, vol. 1 (London: Beveridge and Co., 1879), 249.
And here is a ChatGPT Comparison:
Here’s a comparison of the Old Answer (2024-12-26) and New Answer (2025-02-05) based on content, structure, and sources:
1. Content Analysis
Aspect
Old Answer
New Answer
Emphasis
Focuses on God’s nature, attributes, and self-revelation through His names.
Focuses on Scriptural interpretation, meaning, and anthropomorphic aspects of God’s names.
Key Themes
Names reveal God’s power, authority, and holiness; personal disclosures bridge transcendence and immanence.
Names aid biblical interpretation, highlight human relationship with God, and involve theological significance.
Theological Depth
Discusses Old and New Testament names, linking them to Jesus Christ as the ultimate revelation of God’s name.
Mentions that names arise from believers’ experiences and emphasizes the sanctification of God’s name.
Examples of Names
Lists Elohim, Adonai, and Jehovah, along with name combinations that reveal deeper aspects of God.
Similar list but adds a stronger emphasis on theological meaning and doctrinal implications.
2. Structural Differences
Aspect
Old Answer
New Answer
Sentence Structure
More structured with a logical flow from definition to theological application.
More compact, streamlined for clarity while maintaining depth.
Use of Scripture
Implied through theological references, particularly in how names reflect God’s self-revelation.
Explicitly highlights that biblical names help in interpretation and theological reflection.
Academic Style
More traditional and systematic, citing classic theological sources.
Slightly more modern and application-focused, emphasizing biblical and doctrinal significance.
3. Source Comparison
Source Type
Old Answer
New Answer
Historical Works
John Gill (1839) and William Evans (1974)—more systematic theology sources.
William Burt Pope (1879), Richard Gamble (2009), and Robert Duncan Culver (2005)—broader theological perspectives.
Bible Dictionaries
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Bible Dictionary—widely used theological reference books.
New Bible Dictionary (F. F. Bruce)—a more modern evangelical perspective.
Doctrinal Focus
Systematic and doctrinal sources, tying names to God’s attributes and revelation.
Adds theological application by linking names to biblical law, interpretation, and human understanding.
4. Summary of Differences
• The Old Answer (2024-12-26) is more doctrinal and systematic, emphasizing God’s attributes, His self-revelation in Jesus, and the theological significance of divine names.
• The New Answer (2025-02-05) shifts towards interpretation and application, highlighting how God’s names impact biblical understanding, anthropomorphic connections, and theological sanctification.
• The source material has broadened, incorporating newer theological references while still retaining classic systematic theology.
Conclusion: Has Smart Search Improved?
✅ Yes, there is noticeable improvement.
• The new answer is more nuanced, integrating a wider range of theological perspectives.
• It presents more application-based insights rather than just listing doctrinal truths.
• The citations have expanded beyond classic works to include more modern theological discussions.
8 -
I saved some of my old Smart searches in Notes to verify if Smart Search improve over time. Here is an Old Result (2024-12-26) compared to a New Result (2025-02-05).
Wow, that was a smart move. Thanks for that and the elaboration on analyzing differences. So my gut feeling is ´proven´ right.
1
