nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Frequent typo: "under stand"

Ron

I sent this to logos4feedback@logos.com and was asked to either report typos through the software or post them on the forum. Since I'm not going to report 125 instances one by one, here I am.

I reported on similar typos awhile back, but stumbled across this one yesterday. In my library (which isn't extensive as some), searching for "under stand" (with match all forms checked to catch "under stands", "under standing", etc) returns 125 results in 122 articles. The large majority seem to be typos. The hardest hit resources in my library are:

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels - 32 hits (this particular resource seems to be pretty typo-ridden...it is almost always near the top of the list when I search for these "common" typos)
UBS Handbooks - 17 hits across 4 volumes
Preacher's Commentary - 34 hits across 10 volumes

Last time I brought attention to this type of typo ( http://community.logos.com/forums/p/37578/281808.aspx ), it was mentioned that it may be caused by the removal of soft hyphens during conversion. If that is indeed the case, is there any way for Logos to automate the correcting of this type of error?

EDIT: I just had another thought right after posting and did a search for "under stood," which doesn't get caught by "match all word forms." To the list above, it adds:

Another 18 hits to Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
Another 9 to Preacher's Commentary
Another 2 to UBS Handbooks
Among a smattering of other titles

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

I don't think I fully under stand your point. [:D]

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373973#Comment_373973

I don't think I fully under stand your point.

[:p]

Andrew Baguley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373985#Comment_373985

The black IVP New Testament dictionaries, like the one you mention, have hundreds of similar split words. It could be caused by replacing hyphens. I don't have the printed copy to check. I'm hoping that this only applies to older resources and that they will be fixed before too long, though I have to admit that it's been a long wait already.

I'd be interested in someone confirming the hyphen theory, someone providing examples in newer resources, and a promise from Logos that we won't have to wait too much longer for the older resources (especially the incredibly popular resources you name) to be fixed.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374077#Comment_374077

someone providing examples in newer resources

I don't have any specific examples handy right at the moment, but I have seen several of this type of typo in Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC) and in Hasting's Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, both of which are relatively "recent" (in terms of being published in Logos).

EDIT: While not a case of the "split words", I found that if you use the "modem" example (should be "modern" in most cases), there are a number of examples in relatively recently released resources:

Hastings' Dictionaries
EBC
Ramsay
Barnes
Whyte
Breckinridge
Catena Aurea
Classic Commentaries on Genesis
IVP Old Testament Dictionary
Everyman's
Expositor's Bible
Greater Men and Women
Mullins
Themelios
Several volumes of ECF

The ECF is perhaps the most troubling since it just went through an extensive revision...there are 6 hits in 5 volumes...not extensive, but they should have been caught in the revision since this particular issue has been pointed out several times on the forums [:(]

fgh

I sent this to logos4feedback@logos.com and was asked to either report typos through the software or post them on the forum.

That's absurd! They don't even read all (most?) posts in the General forum!

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374220#Comment_374220

I sent this to logos4feedback@logos.com and was asked to either report typos through the software or post them on the forum.

That's absurd! They don't even read all (most?) posts in the General forum!

Yep, I agree, but I was told that logos4feedback@logos.com is for feedback on current Features and Tools or for reporting bugs. The proper method for reporting typos is through the software. I pointed out that I don't have the time to report 125 typos individually one at a time and asked if I should post them on the forum or if there was a better method...the response was that I can post them on the forums but that unfortunately they don't have any other method other than reporting each one individually.

In a somewhat similar incident, I e-mailed logos4feedback@logos.com earlier in the week to let them know that the newly released Hastings Dictionary of the Bible was incorrectly classified as a dictionary in its metadata rather than as an encyclopedia. I also mentioned that New International Encyclopedia of Bible Characters should probably also be an encyclopedia (it is currently a monograph). The initial response was that I should post my suggestion on UserVoice. I followed up and explained that these weren't suggestions, but rather corrections and that Hastings in particular was clearly wrong. I was assured that my feedback would make it to the right place. I hope that's the case, but between these two incidents, I'm afraid that I'm not entirely confident.

EDIT: just to be clear, I hope I'm not coming across as complaining...I'm just a little confused about the proper process for reporting these types of things...especially since I've reported typos through logos4feedback@logos.com before when I've had large numbers of identical/similar typos and this is the first time that I've been told that this is not the proper channel.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374241#Comment_374241

Metadata on Uservoice??? That's even more absurd! The correct place to report metadata issues is at the Metadata correction proposals Wiki page.

As for systematic typos and resource issues, I've used that mail address multiple times, and it's their job to forward it to the right person, We've paid for these resources. They're working for us, We're not working for them (though it certainly feels like we are!).

Someone clearly hasn't been given the introduction he/she should have been given.

Btw, you should be complaining when you're treated like that!

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374253#Comment_374253

Btw, you should be complaining when you're treated like that!

I understand what you're saying, but neither of the responses was rude, nor was I treated poorly. There is some confusion somewhere though.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374257#Comment_374257

Btw, you should be complaining when you're treated like that!

I understand what you're saying, but neither of the responses was rude, nor was I treated poorly. There is some confusion somewhere though.

If you're told to report 125 typos one by one, then you are being treated poorly. And if you're met with incorrect answers, forcing you to waste time on writing multiple e-mails and forum posts, then you're also being treated poorly. However, I didn't necessarily mean you should be complaining about the individual[s ], who presumably didn't know better; I meant you should be complaining about the company. It's their duty to make sure support staff are properly trained.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374286#Comment_374286

Email reply on typo reporting:

Thank you for reporting the typo in - 101 Hymn Stories

We have logged the typo. It is now available to the electronic publisher and
will be reviewed when the publisher next updates the data files for this text.

Thank you for your help. This message is only sent once per day even when more
than one typo is reported.

Logos Bible Software

[looks like the publisher has to fix it] [Did not report all of them but I had the time that no one else had so I reported a lot]

Andrew Baguley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374294#Comment_374294

I don't know how many you reported, David, but thanks. I reported loads of typos in the IVP black dictionaries some years back. The problem is that we may all be wasting time reporting the same typos as each other. There is nothing to say whether a particular typo has been logged and the turnaround is generally not quick. It would be great to know that you have reported all 1266 instances of 'modem' in my library and so I don't need to. Otherwise, I could go through and report them all one by one, as each of us could.

As far as I'm aware, there is actually no promise that publishers will update the data files, so it may be an even bigger waste of time than we think. I'd like to think that problems in works published by Logos, for example those out of copyright, could be updated fairly quickly and fairly regularly, but Ron's comments on the ECF (Early Church Fathers, such as Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) do not inspire confidence.

It sounds like User Voice needs a suggestion for a better way of dealing with typos. We could build a list on the Wiki of kinds of typos (such as "under stand" and "modem"), then hold Logos accountable when they update a file without fixing the standard typos, but I'm not sure where else we can go with this. Any other suggestions?

It would be great to hear a well-thought out response from Logos regarding the issue (along with a promise to fix the issues we report within a particular timescale).

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374329#Comment_374329

It would be great to hear a well-thought out response from Logos regarding the issue (along with a promise to fix the issues we report within a particular timescale).

[Y]

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374329#Comment_374329

comments on the ECF (Early Church Fathers, such as Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) do not inspire confidence.

along with a promise to fix the issues we report within a particular timescale

Or at least an assurance that these things are getting checked for when they are going back and revise "older" works (older in the sense of when they were originally published by Logos). Of all of this, that is probably what I find the most disheartening...the "modem" issue has been known about for a while (I think that thread was originally started back in 2010), and yet ECF was just extensively updated and revised earlier this year, but still contains several instances of "modem" instead of "modern". I understand that expecting 100% accuracy is unrealistic, but we are talking about known/reported issues and typos being missed in a revision that was focused on updates and corrections.

Again, I'm not in any way trying to disparage the work that Logos has done. The revisions to ECF and AYBD were extensive, much needed, and very well done (some minor issues notwithstanding [:)]). If anything, our higher expectations are probably a reflection of how much Logos has raised the bar in terms of quality, accuracy, etc.

Jason de Kock

We share your collective passion for improving the quality of
the resources we love. We have raised the bar high for new product and are
working hard on correcting the resources we have produced in the past. To
manage the significant cost involved with adding all the new value-added
mark-up to older resources, we have prioritized our resource correction by a
combination of popularity and error count along with the potential for
additional mark-up. Of all the resources we have, 58% of our books have no
typos reported, 38% have one to forty-nine typos reported, and the remaining 4%
account for 70% of the typo reports. Taking into account that many reported
typos are duplicates, the actual number of unique reported typos is lower than
the reported number, but our efforts are focused on the 4% where user pain is
most concentrated.

I am sensitive to the point that there are words, like ‘modem’,
that are likely to be contextually out of our domain and can therefore be
identified as errors, or ‘under stand’ which is also an unlikely word-pair. We
are continually seeking ways to improve our automation and suggestions like
these are helpful. Keeping in mind the priorities above, we’re going to make
sure that the books where these errors are most concentrated get fixed (in many
cases, they’re already in the 4% we’re working on anyway), and flag the others
so that these errors are fixed when those resources are due for updating.
Eliminating these cases will improve our libraries.

We depend on publishers to provide the necessary updated
material by which we compare and correct our resources, so, in some cases, this
can be a hold up for us, but we are working vigorously, and at some expense, to
overcome such obstacles.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/375396#Comment_375396

Thanks so much for the info Jason...keep up the great work! I appreciate the effort that Logos is putting into these issues. [:)]

Andrew Baguley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/375396#Comment_375396

Thanks, Jason. It's good to be reminded that Logos shares the collective passion and that they're prioritising updates. There don't seem to be any time-scale specifics or references to the black IVP dictionaries, which surely must be in the top 4% (unless the suggestion that publishers can be a hold up is a reference to IVP).

As Ron noted, the fact that ECF has been updated while still containing common problems like 'modem' is a concern. Should there be a list on the Wiki of common problems to check for before an updated resource can be released? What would be the solution here? And has ECF now slipped to the bottom of the prioritisation queue, or is there a fast-track for recently corrected resources?

Thanks again for the response and for the level of commitment. Many of us really appreciate it.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/375563#Comment_375563

There don't seem to be any time-scale specifics or references to the black IVP dictionaries, which surely must be in the top 4% (unless the suggestion that publishers can be a hold up is a reference to IVP).

[Y]

the fact that ECF has been updated while still containing common problems like 'modem' is a concern. Should there be a list on the Wiki of common problems to check for before an updated resource can be released? What would be the solution here? And has ECF now slipped to the bottom of the prioritisation queue, or is there a fast-track for recently corrected resources?

[Y]