Range limit on AND search

Search for infant baptism. Open first occurrence:

Used find in panel to find the related infant, Going up - no occurrence (pink) going down, infant is 4 pages later: infant NEAR baptism correctly gives no results.

If this is how it is intended to work, which it may be, the help screen needs clarified because users will expect more Google-like behavior.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

If this is how it is intended to work,

Same as 4.6[:)]

The range in a Basic Search is an article - the text that appears under a heading (article) in Results.

If this is how it is intended to work, which it may be, the help screen needs clarified because users will expect more Google-like behavior.

If you search for infant OR baptism you should see many articles between p 57 and p61. It's highly unlikely that baptism on p57 is related to infant on p61 no matter how Google-like a possible "match" may appear.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400446#Comment_400446

It's highly unlikely that baptism on p57 is related to infant on p61 no matter how Google-like a possible "match" may appear.

My point exactly. Google uses some more reasonable distance measure. Logos is un-Google; users' expectations' Google.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400452#Comment_400452

My point exactly. Google uses some more reasonable distance measure. Logos is un-Google; users' expectations' Google.

This isn't exactly a fair comparison: you searched just a handful of resources then sorted results by Title, which would be like performing a "site:" search in Google, then sorting the results by URL and stating that the first hits aren't relevant. [:)]

A "Ranked" search in Entire Library will return more relevant results. (That's when the algorithm that boosts hits by their proximity actually kicks in.)

Also, if you search "Entire Library", you'll see a Topics section for "Infant Baptism" that includes highly relevant results (including a Reading List that you've edited).

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400452#Comment_400452

Logos is un-Google

We could become more Google-like by removing the ability to order results by Title or Count, but I seem to remember that those were very popular when they were added... [;)]

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400458#Comment_400458

We could become more Google-like

Now there's the revenue stream you've been missing out on:

Run all searches on Logos' servers on all available Logos resources. Allow publishers to pay for top listings in search results. Have a 'Buy this Resource' button right next to the search result.

(I get a royalty on all use of this terrific idea. That is, if Google doesn't step in, first, for their cut.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400455#Comment_400455

This isn't exactly a fair comparison:

Correct - and I don't want Logos to get too Google-like. I couldn't afford to buy the electricity for my personal server farm[:'(]

Yes, I chose a very small test set so that I could easily verify the results. My point is that the AND relationship which uses some measure of article should select items that are pages apart. There needs to be another consideration that limits the distance. This is an example of a result that strikes the average user as "wrong" and leads to requests to be more Google-like.

Footnote: I just finished a natural language processing course and am currently enjoying a probablistic graphical models course. While I couldn't actually fix the problem I finally actually understand the problems.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400452#Comment_400452

My point exactly. Google uses some more reasonable distance measure.

Ok, I see what is happening. It is one large article!

The Results state 2x hits in the article on p57, so the other hit should be "infant". I expect it to be in that article but "hidden" in a footnote (which Find does not search). You can verify that by using "Search Result" on the Locator bar or by manually scanning the article. Performing the search on "Surface Text" should give zero results in that article.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400455#Comment_400455

This isn't exactly a fair comparison:

Something unusual is happening, though. Perform a similar Search for "infant" in Holman illustrated bible dictionary. I can't locate the second result in Bethlehem p.194; Search Result goes straight to the occurrence in the next article, Bulrush p.243. When I perform the Search on "Surface Text" there is only 1 result in the Bethlehem article!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400476#Comment_400476

In one-column mode with footnotes at bottom of page - there are no footnotes

Results are identical for:
infant baptism
infant AND baptism

MacArthur Bible Studies: Mark - 5 occurrences
baptism appears 2 times on pg 69
infant appears 1 time on pg 70; baptism appears 2 times on pg 70

MacArthur Bible Studies: Acts - 2 occurrences
baptism appears in page 57
infant appears in page 61

infant WITHIN 500 WORDS baptism selects 3 in Mark, none in Acts
infant WITHIN 100 WORDS baptism selects nothing

I'm trying to say the average user isn't going to expect to have to page through several screens to see the other half of an AND relationship.

The problem is the length of the unit of text that Logos 5 is using for the AND relationship. Seeing what Logos is doing in the case which I found my accident means I could find so truly bizarre cases.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400463#Comment_400463

My point is that the AND relationship which uses some measure of article should select items that are pages apart. There needs to be another consideration that limits the distance. This is an example of a result that strikes the average user as "wrong" and leads to requests to be more Google-like.

I usually tell users to use a Google-like phrase "infant baptism" if they want meaningful results (or use NEAR).

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400477#Comment_400477

In one-column mode with footnotes at bottom of page - there are no footnotes

I was handicapped by not having that resource and made an incorrect assumption.

I'm trying to say the average user isn't going to expect to have to page through several screens to see the other half of an AND relationship.

That was a problem in L3 but L4/L5 users can use Search Result in the locator bar.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400478#Comment_400478

I usually tell users to use a Google-like phrase "infant baptism" if they want meaningful results (or use NEAR).

I didn't say this is how I personally would do it. In fact, I've probably never used the resources. I'm testing the L5 search function and trying to act like a average Evangelical Jill. Guess I'm not very good at the role.[:(]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400485#Comment_400485

I'm testing the L5 search function and trying to act like a average Evangelical Jill. Guess I'm not very good at the role.

Things might have turned out differently for both of us if I had that resource!