Trouble with search

Pardon my ignorance here. I have tried to do a search using some of the search operators found at http://wiki.logos.com/Detailed_Search_Help.

Instead of operating, the operators seems to be a part of the search. Here's what I'm doing (fwiw, it happened to me on both Win and Mac today):

(finger OR hand) WITHIN 2 WORDS God

Here are the results. I'm looking for "finger of God" or "hand of God", but I'm finding results that have the word "within" in them.

Thanks,

Bill

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

William Gabriel

Oh, I should mention, I know I can do it another way, as I attached to this post, but I was trying to use a more flexible search phrase to catch other uses that might not be as straightforward. Either I'm doing something wrong above or there's a bug, so it would be good to know which.

Thanks,

Bill

Todd Phillips

(finger OR hand) WITHIN 2 WORDS God

Here are the results. I'm looking for "finger of God" or "hand of God", but I'm finding results that have the word "within" in them.

Boolean operators (AND,OR) don't work inside of proximity clauses in the search argument. But you can use the list operator (a comma):

(finger,hand) WITHIN 2 WORDS God

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/346845#Comment_346845

Boolean operators (AND,OR) don't work inside of proximity clauses in the search argument. But you can use the list operator (a comma):

(finger,hand) WITHIN 2 WORDS God

Thanks, Todd... am I the only one who finds that "quirky"? LOL

I glanced at the wiki document & didn't trip over your comment; it'd sure be useful if added to the documentation there. Thanks so much for your response. You cleared it up for me, too.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/346847#Comment_346847

Thanks, Todd... am I the only one who finds that "quirky"? LOL

From a programming standpoint, it makes sense. The result of an Boolean sub-clause is a true value or a false value, and those values don't work as arguments for the proximity operators.

I glanced at the wiki document & didn't trip over your comment; it'd sure be useful if added to the documentation there. Thanks so much for your response. You cleared it up for me, too.

It could probably be clearer, but that restriction is mentioned in the note at the end of the "Using Parentheses" section: http://wiki.logos.com/Detailed_Search_Help#Using_parentheses

EDIT: I just added a note regarding this to the Proximity Operators section.

William Gabriel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/346852#Comment_346852

Thanks, Todd... am I the only one who finds that "quirky"? LOL

From a programming standpoint, it makes sense. The result of an Boolean sub-clause is a true value or a false value, and those values don't work as arguments for the proximity operators.

I glanced at the wiki document & didn't trip over your comment; it'd sure be useful if added to the documentation there. Thanks so much for your response. You cleared it up for me, too.

It could probably be clearer, but that restriction is mentioned in the note at the end of the "Using Parentheses" section: http://wiki.logos.com/Detailed_Search_Help#Using_parentheses

EDIT: I just added a note regarding this to the Proximity Operators section.

I concur with BillS, thank you for clearing that up.

I suppose it can make sense from a programming standpoint, but it sounds like they're mixing types in their search recursion. If the boolean search attaches a true/false value to a verse/phrase and then tries to compare that lexically in a proximity search, it seems like they need to convert the boolean system to a lexical one. I'm not sure what language they're writing all of this in, but many languages will treat a non-zero/null/empty value as "true", so they would be able to keep their boolean semantics while providing the argument needed for the proximity search.

In other words, when searching for (Jesus OR God), it should return "Jesus" or "God" instead of true.

I think the reason the current system would make sense is if the proximity feature was added or bolted on after the original search engine was created.