A5-Passage Guide Results are Full of Junk

I did a PG for Romans 4. The good news is, no crashes. The bad news, it is full of so many entries for the same resource that it renders the PG fairly useless. You need to do some serious work here to get this on track.

Note the more useful results for commentaries in 1.2.2

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Richard Teschendorf

Joe,

FWIW, I just did the same Romans 4 search that you did and my results look very much like the example you show for 1.2.2 (although I have less resources than you, it found 12).

Jack Caviness

did a PG for Romans 4. The good news is, no crashes. The bad news, it is full of so many entries for the same resource that it renders the PG fairly useless. You need to do some serious work here to get this on track.

Joe

I noticed that the screen shot for 1.2.2 was displaying Commentaries, but the one for A-5 was showing MyTag Exegetical. Would that explain the difference in the results? I haven't run Romans 4, but my other searches have displayed a manageable list of commentaries.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44901#Comment_44901

Hi Jack, I tagged my commentaries in 3 ways, Exegetical, Homiletical, and Expository. I want the same results, just a list of commentaries that match the search, not every reference to Romans 4 in every commentary. That is a fairly meaningless result for a commentary and takes away the value of creating collections in the PG. I hope that is fixed.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44909#Comment_44909

Hi Jack, I tagged my commentaries in 3 ways, Exegetical, Homiletical, and Expository. I want the same results, just a list of commentaries that match the search, not ever reference to Romans 4 in every commentary. That is a fairly meaningless result for a commentary and takes away the value of creating collections in the PG. I hope that is fixed.

Joe,

Collection searches produce similar results in windows. I agree that it produces an unmanageable result

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44909#Comment_44909

Hi Jack

Don't use that greeting in airports [:D]

I tagged my commentaries in 3 ways, Exegetical, Homiletical, and Expository.

I see. Didn't Bob promise to bring PRAs back? That is where I got this result in L3. Also in L3 and in 1.2.2, Collections could be selected in the Commentary section. I would like to see that feature restored in L4.

No matter which order I use in prioritizing my commentaries, it does not work well for some studies. I want the result you are seeking. If you find a way to make it work in L4, please share it with the rest of us. What am I saying? I know you will share, that's your nature.[:)]

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44912#Comment_44912

Hi Damian,

There is little point in creating a custom PG of versified commentaries when it does not produce a list of versified results like in the Commentary section of the PG.

Just create an option to creation a custom list of Commentaries and then make the results look like the Commentary section of the PG. No amount of customization helps if you can't get proper results.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44916#Comment_44916

There is little point in creating a custom PG of versified commentaries when it does not produce a list of versified results like in the Commentary section of the PG.

Just create an option to creation a custom list of Commentaries and then make the results look like the Commentary section of the PG. No amount of customization helps if you can't get proper results.

Agreed 100%. This has been requested wrt the Windows version. I can't remember any response.

Certainly, in a passage guide search, I would like to search a subset of my commentaries and have it produce results similar to the commentary section. When studying Genesis 1:1, I am not instantly desirous of reading what the WBC Mark volume has to say on the topic. When I want these sorts of results, I do a search.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/44913#Comment_44913

If you find a way to make it work in L4, please share it with the rest of us. What am I saying? I know you will share, that's your nature.

Thanks brother. My focus right now is just on trying to make the Alpha better for me and other users. I am scaling back my participation in the forums and wont be helping as much in the near future. I am leaving that to the paid employees of Logos. But if I do find a solution or workaround I will post it my friend.

Mike Melloy

Joe,

I noticed in your example that you have "The NET Bible First Edition Notes". I have the NET Bible, but it looks like you have the notes linked like a commentary. Did you do something special??? [:D]

Thanks, Mike.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/45972#Comment_45972

Hi Mike,

As I mentioned above to Jack,I tagged my commentaries in 3 ways, Exegetical, Homiletical, and Expository.

Using the windows version of L4 I created a Custom PG with sections for each group of commentaries.

While the groupings are cool, the results are really useless until Logos produces a versified result like the one for the standards commentary list in the PG.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/45975#Comment_45975

While the groupings are cool, the results are really useless until Logos produces a versified result like the one for the standards commentary list in the PG.

Yes, Logos, give us the functionality again. This is an area where PRAs really produced useful results.

Mike Melloy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/45975#Comment_45975

Joe,

Thanks for the response. [:)]

I was actually looking for the book itself. I did find that under the Net Bible listing on logos.com there are three files available. I already had the GS_NETBIBLE file, but not the GS_NETNOTE file. I downloaded the notes only file and it shows locked. It appears that my package includes the Bible with notes, but not the seperate notes file. [:(]

Oh well.

Thanks.