Featured Product

Don't get me wrong, I love Logos and have very little to complain about but, am I the only one who is more than a bit annoyed that the feature product on the Logos home page has been the Bible Study Magazine for over a year? I have read an issue and personally find it kind of, well, "fluffy." I suppose it must be to have a wide enough appeal, and it does not bother me at all that it does, but I would like a different "featured product." We have not had an actual Logos related product there for a year now and just wanted to put my two cents in and wondered if I am alone.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TCBlack

You're not alone Alan.
I've enjoyed an article or two, but I don't read many magazines at all - including this one. It's time to move on.

Wilson Hines

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22358#Comment_22358

I could understand your frustration with it being up for a year.

On the other hand, there have been some articles dealing with original lang usage that have been interesting reading. The magazine is just like the software: It is built for everybody from the Sunday School teacher to the Scholar.

Alan's original point is spot on, though. Whether you like the Bible Study magazine (personally, I don't) is not the issue. It has been the featured product for a year. It would be nice to have something else as the "featured product."

Perry Payne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22393#Comment_22393

I completely agree - enough of the Bible Study Magazine being the featured product. I would think that it would change every week to get products out there that users may have missed or just overlooked.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22473#Comment_22473

I would think that it would change every week to get products out there that users may have missed or just overlooked.

Or even a resource that is on sale...

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22479#Comment_22479

I personally really like the BSM. I think it does have broad appeal, and is more than fluff, although it does have some articles that are far from technical. Still they are about as "fluffy" as most of our sermons and illustrations--and we find those valuable for what they are, don't we? There is always room for improvement but I promote it, talk about it, give away free copies, etc. I will reserve my critique for another time and venue.

other than that, yup, I would like to see more 'featured products.'

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22489#Comment_22489

of course none of us know the investment startup cost of the magazine and their needed target to keep it going, nor how many people are subscribing to it off of website visits. It may be supplying just what they need.

I am a little disappointed after their grand March Madness thing in the Spring they are not jumping on the soon to be played MLS (Major League Soccer) playoffs (let alone that they bypassed MLB), especially as Washington boasts the highest avg attendance for an MLS team, the Sounders, who play at Q'west field . . . in their first year as a club, at over 30K.

Shout out, all three of you, if you follow MLS and want to have a Logos Fall Madness put in the works!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22489#Comment_22489

Still they are about as "fluffy" as most of our sermons and illustrations--

You're speaking about your own sermons, of course. [;)]

I guess I really don't like fluff. Give me the unleavened version. A few of the articles I've read had potential. But just as they seemed ready to get off the ground, they shut down their engines and never left the runway. They were almost interesting. But most articles didn't draw me in past the title, or opening paragraph.

To me it seems more like Bible study lite, when what I want is Bible study light.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22503#Comment_22503

To me it seems more like Bible study lite, when what I want is Bible study light.

so you logged into this site so we could see with your sight.

cute. fluffy.

It's not perfect, but come on: most magazines are essentially fluff and intro to a degree. that is why guys (generically and genderlessly speaking) like us have Logos software and tools.

I still like the BSM idea, and applaud their efforts to work out the kinks. I liked, for instance, their article comparing the 10 commandments. I like their effort for a more long range Bible study (on Hebrews--although it was a bit too long range for me and my needs). It was interesting to see how Kutless was informed by Bible study. I liked learning a bit more about Kay Arthur. I liked some of the product reviews. etc etc.

anyway, back to MY study . . .

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22519#Comment_22519

so you logged into this site so we could see with your sight.

Of course!

I'd like the idea of a BSM article designed as an intro with a workspace I could download to continue the study. That'd be cool.

But articles don't have to be long to get my attention, or controversial, or 'attention grabbing.' Just give me something I can't sip through a straw, something I can chew on. I think most editors underestimate the intelligence of their readers. But as a Bible study magazine, it would be great if the study was a bit more content, and a little less illustration. (And yes, I feel the same way about a lot of sermons I hear.)

Bible study is a serious business. And while it can also be fun, it should always be substantial, life-changing, challenging, or in some way helpful in strengthening our walk with God. BSM hasn't been merely trivial, but whenever I read an article I usually find myself wishing the article had more depth.

Alan Charles Gielczyk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22522#Comment_22522

My intention here was not to bash the magazine, I understand the target audience and Logos' need to reach as wide an audience as possible. My point was just about the featured product and how I wish they would change it like they used to.