Can anyone suggest any decent resources to find illustrationsthat are available in L4? Thank you andLord bless!
Scott:
Do you mean illustrations for preaching or do you mean clip art for the bulletin or monthly newsletters?
My bad...illustrations for preaching.
You can find a bunch if you go to the Logos website and search for title:illustrations. That will also find books with illustrated or illustrator in their titles, so you'll have to skip over those. I couldn't figure out a way to restrict the search results to not include other forms of the word.
.illustrations for preaching.
There doesn't seem to be a category for these on the Logos web site, but run a search using the term "illustrations"
To see what you may already have in your library you can build a Collection using a rule such as:
(type:monograph) AND ((subject:illustration) OR (subject:quotation) OR title:Illustration))
Graham
I got a few more useful hits by using this collection definition:
(title:illustrations OR title:stories OR title:quotations OR title:laughter OR title:1001 OR subject:illust OR subject:quot)
I got a few more useful hits by using this collection definition: (title:illustrations OR title:stories OR title:quotations OR title:laughter OR title:1001 OR subject:illust OR subject:quot)
At this point wouldn't it be easier to drag in the few you don't get from a much simpler string? Seems you've done more than that in work to come up with this string. Some stuff in Logos doesn't collect easily. Just my 2 cents.
I use (title:(illustration, quotation) OR subject:(illustration,quotation)) ANDNOT (subject:(bible) OR title:Philo)
The 'OR title:Philo' is a bit of a cheat (like Floyd's 'OR title:laughter OR title:1001). It's probably better as Mark says just to drag the recalcitrant resources to the 'minus' section. (The principle being that I shouldn't really modify the collection string in a non-logical fashion just to get rid of two troublesome books.)
I got a few more useful hits by using this collection definition: (title:illustrations OR title:stories OR title:quotations OR title:laughter OR title:1001 OR subject:illust OR subject:quot) At this point wouldn't it be easier to drag in the few you don't get from a much simpler string? Seems you've done more than that in work to come up with this string. Some stuff in Logos doesn't collect easily. Just my 2 cents.
Probably - but at this point it would be more work to find those two or three odd books than to just leave the definition and live with what I have.
I got a few more useful hits by using this collection definition: (title:illustrations OR title:stories OR title:quotations OR title:laughter OR title:1001 OR subject:illust OR subject:quot) At this point wouldn't it be easier to drag in the few you don't get from a much simpler string? Seems you've done more than that in work to come up with this string. Some stuff in Logos doesn't collect easily. Just my 2 cents. Probably - but at this point it would be more work to find those two or three odd books than to just leave the definition and live with what I have.
What I do to find the odd books and simplify my rule is REVERSE the boolean operators of the last item I added which added more books to my collection. So for example if I just picked up two more books by adding "OR subject:quot" and I want to find out which ones they are and whethery the are both ones I want, and get the chance to drag them specifically (instead of having a weird rule filter that might later dynamicall pick up some things I don't want without me knowing), I'd change the rule (temporarily) to this (notice I just swapped the last filter to the front, added ANDNOT removed the final OR and put the whole ANDNOT clause in parentheses):
subject:quot ANDNOT (title:illustrations OR title:stories OR title:quotations OR title:laughter OR title:1001 OR subject:illust)
I then look through the (now much smaller) collection results, pick out any that I do want to keep directly from that list and drag them from there up to "+ Plus these resources." Then I put the rule back to the way it was, minus the added filter which I no longer need.
