What is the goal of a Reading List?

Is it to give a selected list of quality sources to read to learn about a topic? Or is it to give an exhaustive bibliography of everything that's been written on the topic (yes, "Trinity" reading list, I'm looking at you)?

I had hoped for the first, but I opened the Trinity list, I felt like I had done a library search in Logos, and it was a little overwhelming. It did have sources on it that weren't yet available in Logos, so that's a benefit.

I feel that there should be some editorial decision in the sources added to a list, otherwise, how do we benefit from these manually created lists when we could have obtained similar results just searching the library. For example, don't just list the sources by type, but break out the sources by the position they take on a subject and by how comprehensive the coverage in discussing the sides of a controversial topic. Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Performance

Comments

spitzerpl

I feel that there should be some editorial decision in the sources added to a list, otherwise, how do we benefit from these manually created lists when we could have obtained similar results just searching the library.

If you search your library, you get the results only from your library. Reading lists would give you the opportunity to see what resources others have in their library, as well as resources outside of Logos that could be of benefit. Personally, I have never found topical searches in Logos to be too fruitful. There has always been too much of little value. Reading lists give a great place to see the resources others have found most valuable in their studies.

For example, don't just list the sources by type, but break out the sources by the position they take on a subject and by how comprehensive the coverage in discussing the sides of a controversial topic

I started to do this in my study of First Peter. Open the First Epistle of Peter reading list and go down to the date section. I think this is what you had in mind. I've held back creating more reading lists because of recent family hardships, time, and waiting to see what new features they add. I'm glad I did since they added the RL copy format and the links to the articles online. It makes things so much easier.

I believe they could extremely valuable. Unfortunately I think they will also be under-used :-(

Bob Pritchett

My goal was the first -- a shorter list of quality sources. But since Reading Lists are a community created features, I think they'll become what people choose to make them.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21677#Comment_21677

My goal was the first -- a shorter list of quality sources.

I agree with this goal. Here are the difficulties and recommendations I have run into as I, the self-proclaimed reading list advocate, have created reading lists.

How do I determine for the broader community what I consider to be the "quality" resource. If I limit the reading list I create to "academically acclaimed" resources the list becomes useless because only those who have put the money into those resources will be able to use the list. And which Academic circle should I use as a bench mark? Naturally I would use my own. Being the good little fundy I am there would be many who find my reading list...whats the phrase...eye rolling maybe :-)

Solution: Provide a means for readers to rate the Reading List resources or pull the ratings from peoples libraries...though I think you'll get some hair raising privacy remarks from that one. I would recommend the first because though someone may thing a systematic theology is horrible, they may think the way they deal with the specific topic is outstanding.

Ken Shawver

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21981#Comment_21981

Thanks Philip for posing the question as I was wondering that myself. I like the thought behind it, but in order to make use of it I'd like some sort of way to determine a rating. Of course we can get into a deep discussion of what one considers good.

Personally, I know resources that I believe are sound, but would be hesitant not to look at resources outside of what I use in order to get a rounder picture. Plus, you never know when the Holy Spirit will bring something across your plate that is backed up scripturally that may shake up your theology.

Phil Gons (Logos)

Is it to give a selected list of quality sources to read to learn about a topic? Or is it to give an exhaustive bibliography of everything that's been written on the topic (yes, "Trinity" reading list, I'm looking at you)?

As the creator of the Trinity list, I have a few comments.

I had hoped for the first, but I opened the Trinity list, I felt like I had done a library search in Logos, and it was a little overwhelming.

The Trinity list is far from what you get when you do a search. In fact, I spent a couple dozen hours building it. It was originally part of my bibliography for my dissertation.

It did have sources on it that weren't yet available in Logos, so that's a benefit.

Another benefit to an exhaustive approach is that you're not having to make decisions regarding what every type of user may want. Do you build your list for the new Christian, the Sunday school teacher, the student, the professor, or the pure scholar? And what denomination or theological bent? If you include everything, they you have a list that works for everyone.

I feel that there should be some editorial decision in the sources added to a list.

I made lots of editorial decisions when I created my list. I just didn't make your editorial decisions apparently.

otherwise, how do we benefit from these manually created lists when
we could have obtained similar results just searching the
library.

Again, I'd challenge you to reproduce this by "just searching."

For example, don't just list the sources by type, but break out the sources by the position they take on a subject and by how comprehensive the coverage in discussing the sides of a controversial topic.

That's far too complicated to do in most scenarios. What if they don't take a position? Or what if I've misunderstood their position? How would you do this with a reading list on the Trinity? Are there two positions: those who believe in it and those who don't?

One benefit to organizing by type—and starting with shorter and lighter and working towards longer and weightier—is that it allows anyone to drill as deeply as they want to go. I intentionally put the introductory stuff on top and the academic stuff on the bottom so any kind of user can jump in wherever they want and go and far as they want. If all you want are a couple of general dictionary articles, then they are all conveniently located right at the top.

So, that's the thinking behind the reading lists I've created (i.e., Trinity, Union with Christ, Warfield, Owen, Müller, and Kenosis).

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22089#Comment_22089

So, that's the thinking behind the reading lists I've created (i.e., Trinity, Union with Christ, Warfield, Owen, Müller, and Kenosis).

Good thought, Phil. My entries are on a first found first posted basis. I too feel that if I were doing a search for a topic in Logos and saw a reading list at the top, I would jump for joy and hit it first before weeding through the library results.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22089#Comment_22089

I had hoped for the first, but I opened the Trinity list, I felt like I had done a library search in Logos, and it was a little overwhelming.

The Trinity list is far from what you get when you do a search. In fact, I spent a couple dozen hours building it. It was originally part of my bibliography for my dissertation.

Hey, Phil, I'm sorry I worded it like that. My point was the sheer number of links made me feel like I was wading through a library search, in that I would need to check each of the references to see what it contained. It was apparent that it was a bibliography, and that can be very useful in the right context. But I was trying to get a reaction to see what people thought and I picked on you.

One benefit to organizing by type—and starting with shorter and lighter and working towards longer and weightier—is that it allows anyone to drill as deeply as they want to go. I intentionally put the introductory stuff on top and the academic stuff on the bottom so any kind of user can jump in wherever they want and go and far as they want. If all you want are a couple of general dictionary articles, then they are all conveniently located right at the top.

For what it's worth, I think your Books and Treatises section is nice, and I almost didn't see it since it was at the end of the Trinity list. I was wishing it was closer to the top, say right after the Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22095#Comment_22095

Hey, Phil, I'm sorry I worded it like that. My point was the sheer number of links made me feel like I was wading through a library search, in that I would need to check each of the references to see what it contained. It was apparent that it was a bibliography, and that can be very useful in the right context. But I was trying to get a reaction to see what people thought and I picked on you.

No worries. Pointed taken. It can feel overwhelming. I agree. But I think the vast majority of lists won't be this long.

For what it's worth, I think your Books and Treatises section is nice, and I almost didn't see it since it was at the end of the Trinity list. I was wishing it was closer to the top, say right after the Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.

I can understand that. I put them at the bottom, though, because they are the most exhaustive and often most technical. I figured most casual inquirers would want to see lighter and shorter stuff first.