Isn't 586 BC important for something other than Jeremiah heading off to Egypt? Or should I question the resource rather than the timeline? And should I expect an update with additional links soon?
The easy question first: you should always expect another update, since our data is constantly evolving. [:)]
Your report leaves me uncertain about what did you do, what happened, and what do you think ought to happen. Here's my best guess:
Is that at all correct?
We have to do additional processing to integrate any resource with the Timeline, in order to correctly mark and normalize the date in the resource, and to connect that resource to the right event (as you note, there were other things that happened in 586 BC). I'll take a look and see if i can determine what the disconnect is here.
Looks like in this particular case, we know the correct date (586 BC) but it's not aligned with a specific timeline event. We're selective about the events for which we create timeline events, just to manage the amount of information. And in this case, we haven't done the processing yet to align the date with a specific event. So we can take you to the timeline for that date, but not to a particular event.
For comparison, this link takes you to the ISBE article on "Jeremiah, Book of". logosres:isbe;ref=VolumePage.V_2,_p_986;off=1723 There, in the context
"D. After the Fall of Jerusalem (586-ca 575 B.C.) At the time of the capture of the city, Jeremiah was under arrest in the court of the guard,"
a right-click on 586 shows both the date but also the specific timeline event, Second Babylonian Siege of Jerusalem.
I wanted to add that you can turn on the "Timeline events" visual filter to see where we have DateReferences in our books, some books and dates are not fully tagged.
1. The solid flag indicates that the we have tagged a specific Timeline Event with that DateReference in that book, if you click the flag it will take you directly to the Timeline Event (no right click/context menu needed).
2. The hollow flag indicates a simple DateReference and clicking the hollow flag will take you to the Timeline centered at that date, not a specific event.
Also, hovering over the Timeline visual filter will show you the title of the tagged Timeline Event or the date for simple filtered Date References.
I wanted to add that you can turn on the "Timeline events" visual filter to see where we have DateReferences in our books, some books and dates are not fully tagged. 1. The solid flag indicates that the we have tagged a specific Timeline Event with that DateReference in that book, if you click the flag it will take you directly to the Timeline Event (no right click/context menu needed). 2. The hollow flag indicates a simple DateReference and clicking the hollow flag will take you to the Timeline centered at that date, not a specific event. Also, hovering over the Timeline visual filter will show you the title of the tagged Timeline Event or the date for simple filtered Date References.
Look at this screenshot from the previously referenced location in ISBE. Are the flags supposed to look like this (i.e. splitting the date in two)?
Also, are Date Reference's supposed to be autorecognizing or do we have to wait for you to go through resources and manually tag them as such? See this screenshot from the EEC commentary on Ezra which is replete with dates which don't appear to be recognizing. Neither is the TimeLine events visual filter even available.
Your report leaves me uncertain about what did you do, what happened, and what do you think ought to happen. Here's my best guess: You right-clicked on the date in the resource and went to the timeline You expected to navigate to a timeline event like "Babylonians destroy Jerusalem", but instead see "Jeremiah is taken to Egypt" Is that at all correct?
What I did was simpler.
I clicked on 586 BC to see if it was a link. It wasn't. I opened the timeline, set the dates and discovered that still didn't take me to confirming information. A right click could have been used to bring up the timeline but it wasn't. I was simply looking at navigation and links on a resource that was brand new and Logos created thinking it should have the best chance of implementation of the new features.
That sounds really great ... but on my newest Logos created resource ...
There are two steps:
Our "normal" book processing now does #1 for all incoming resources, but for previous resources, we have to go back and reprocess the books. If it doesn't have date annotation, then there's no visual filter or context menu link. We've only done #2 for a select list of books so far, though of course we want to do as many books as will benefit from this annotation.
The "Timeline events" visual filter only shows in the visual filter list when we see Timeline Event tags in the resource, apparently this one has no Timeline events.
I don't know why this book has not been tagged with Timeline events, but think the Timeline event tags are added manually. We can auto-detect dates, but the association of the date to a single timeline event requires someone to look at the surrounding text and figure out what event the date is referencing and then associate with the correct timeline event id.
Wow! That's going to be a lot of work. I'm guessing there's going to be many resources missed. I would recommend again (just like I did for Libronix 3 and Logos 4) that you include a tool to allow users (maybe just those who you approve) to suggest items that you miss. Such as
Logos responses as to what has to be done makes perfect sense. I still find it discouraging that their in-house resources released within a couple of month of release don't have the coding. Yes, I can think of logical reasons this is true but it is still discouraging.
I clicked on 586 BC to see if it was a link. It wasn't.
Just to be clear, the "date annotation" step has been completed in this resource, so you should be able to access the timeline by right-clicking dates. (And the dates are searchable, etc., like any data type.)
Just to be clear, the "date annotation" step has been completed in this resource,
I believe that I have found the source of my confusion.
combine this with a reference that implies something very major happened in 586 BC - but not important enough to be on the timeline.
I suspect others may go down the apparently erroneous path of thinking the problem is in the application rather than the data.
I don't know why this book has not been tagged with Timeline events, but think the Timeline event tags are added manually. We can auto-detect dates, but the association of the date to a single timeline event requires someone to look at the surrounding text and figure out what event the date is referencing and then associate with the correct timeline event id. Wow! That's going to be a lot of work. I'm guessing there's going to be many resources missed. I would recommend again (just like I did for Libronix 3 and Logos 4) that you include a tool to allow users (maybe just those who you approve) to suggest items that you miss. Such as Dates - If we are reading through a resource, let us mark a date as a date and even enter a suggested timeline event (after that it will function as a timeline event on our machine...then when it gets approved by Logos it will propagate to others) Bible references - Sometimes Bible references are missed or (as is more often the case) mistagged. Let us correct these links on our machine and then upon Logos' approval, propagate them to everybody's library. Links to other resources: There are many books (especially Vyrso but really most books that I read) in which references to books that are in my Logos library have not be linked. I would love to be able to create this link manually, which would then show it on my machine, and upon Logos' approval propage it to everybody's resource copy.
Jacob:
I appreciate your perspective, but given our current tools, letting users mark dates and timeline events would probably make for more work, not less. It takes quite a bit of context and judgment to make reasonable decisions about aligning dates to timeline events (including when to create a new one): we have more than 8000 such events, and very specific guidelines about how they're titled, how we choose the dates, what their types are, etc. Since all Logos users see the results, i'm frankly very particular about who i trust enough to do it. There is an important place for user-supplied data (like Reading Lists), but in my view this timeline data really needs to be right, not just close.
But you're right: it's a lot of work. With Logos 5, it's more true than ever that this kind of added-value annotation of the texts is a major benefit that justifies the premium price of our product.
Anytime you see a data type (like a Bible reference) that is missed or mistagged, you should report it as a typo: that's no less an error than a misspelled word.
Since all Logos users see the results, i'm frankly very particular about who i trust enough to do it.
There is one other approach that I'd like to think Logos considers an eventual option - working off-site. One could find seminary students, professors and retirees who could use a bit more income and could be treated as employees.
Since all Logos users see the results, i'm frankly very particular about who i trust enough to do it. There is one other approach that I'd like to think Logos considers an eventual option - working off-site. One could find seminary students, professors and retirees who could use a bit more income and could be treated as employees.
Yes, we do this now for some projects, but typically ones that are self-contained and don't require all the information resources that we use in-house (which are not easy to securely expose outside). We are working on better tools that will broaden the pool of data contributors, but i readily acknowledge we've still got a ways to go.
I appreciate your perspective, but given our current tools, letting users mark dates and timeline events would probably make for more work, not less. It takes quite a bit of context and judgment to make reasonable decisions about aligning dates to timeline events (including when to create a new one): we have more than 8000 such events, and very specific guidelines about how they're titled, how we choose the dates, what their types are, etc. Since all Logos users see the results, i'm frankly very particular about who i trust enough to do it. There is an important place for user-supplied data (like Reading Lists), but in my view this timeline data really needs to be right, not just close. But you're right: it's a lot of work. With Logos 5, it's more true than ever that this kind of added-value annotation of the texts is a major benefit that justifies the premium price of our product. Anytime you see a data type (like a Bible reference) that is missed or mistagged, you should report it as a typo: that's no less an error than a misspelled word.
Thanks, I will continue to post those as typos. I am hesitant to believe that that is an effective solution, however. I have been reading Logos resources for years and know that old resources tend to be forgotten, typos can be left unfixed as more lucrative income-generating work takes precedence, and resources that were published before the linked resources were available in Logos tend to be left unlinked. There are some great exceptions to this, but this is the general rule and as more works are available and new markups made I fear that the problem will get worse not better.
I wonder if for at least Bible links and links to other resources something like what I have recommended before might not work: When 2 or 3 people recommend the same change it is automatic. Otherwise, they are treated like a typo report. I have a hard time understanding how a modified wiki model with some quality controls (human editors with possibility for automatic approval for certain users or if multiple reports are generated). When I read a book in Logos, there are hours of ready and willing labor available.thanks for the reply and for considering... I'll hop off my pedestal for another cycle and wait to recommend it again when 6 rolls around. Someday...
Thanks, I will continue to post those as typos. I am hesitant to believe that that is an effective solution, however. I have been reading Logos resources for years and know that old resources tend to be forgotten, typos can be left unfixed as more lucrative income-generating work takes precedence, and resources that were published before the linked resources were available in Logos tend to be left unlinked. There are some great exceptions to this, but this is the general rule and as more works are available and new markups made I fear that the problem will get worse not better. I wonder if for at least Bible links and links to other resources something like what I have recommended before might not work: When 2 or 3 people recommend the same change it is automatic. Otherwise, they are treated like a typo report. I have a hard time understanding how a modified wiki model with some quality controls (human editors with possibility for automatic approval for certain users or if multiple reports are generated). When I read a book in Logos, there are hours of ready and willing labor available.thanks for the reply and for considering... I'll hop off my pedestal for another cycle and wait to recommend it again when 6 rolls around. Someday...
I completely agree that some of these data tasks could be "crowdsourced", and there's a ready pool of talented and committed users who would willingly help. Building our capabilities in this area is one of my responsibilities, post-Logos 5. So i hope you'll see some activity here long before Logos 6 [:)]
I completely agree that some of these data tasks could be "crowdsourced", and there's a ready pool of talented and committed users who would willingly help. Building our capabilities in this area is one of my responsibilities, post-Logos 5. So i hope you'll see some activity here long before Logos 6
[Y]
