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; } } }

Another deficiency in searching

George Somsel

I just noted that another feature present in L3 is missing in L4 (besides a working morphological search). This is the BDAG search. It is no longer possible to search the differing materials included in the entries. In L3 we could search such areas as "All Text", "Extended Definition", "Formal Equivalent."

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

You still can.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61382#Comment_61382

You still can.

OK, so this can still be done if you are privy to the esoterica of the syntax to accomplish this. I still say "Bring on the clowns" -- Errr, "Bring back the check boxes." I don't wish to plough through documentation to find this information.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61398#Comment_61398

George, you wouldn't be suggesting that we should have a simple tool that makes everything simple, rather than spend a lot of time learning how to do it better, would you? Sounds like a good argument for reverse interlinears to me! [:P]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61587#Comment_61587

Incidentally, I should add that you don't need to plow through documentation to find out about this. All the searchable fields are listed in the information panel of every resource, under (surprise, surprise) "search fields".

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61587#Comment_61587

George, you wouldn't be suggesting that we should have a simple tool that makes everything simple, rather than spend a lot of time learning how to do it better, would you? Sounds like a good argument for reverse interlinears to me!

If I wanted to program, as I once did, I would get a manual for the language and learn the various commands. Since I am actually more interested in understanding the biblical text than in programming, yes, I do want a simple tool. To equate a semi-programming language vs. a simple interface with the use of an interlinear is not a true comparison in any sense. With an interlinear one pretends to benefit from the use of the original language rather than actually learning the original language. It would be better to choose a reliable commentator (or more) who can comment on the original than to pretend to understand the original through the use of an interlinear. I really think, however, that you are simply yanking my chain.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61606#Comment_61606

I really think, however, that you are simply yanking my chain.

Who, me? [A]

But seriously, learning to look at the information panel to see what search fields are available, and then typing those search fields into a search bar can hardly be equated with a 'semi-programming language'. And FWIW, I hated all those tickboxes in L3, and avoided using them. Each to their own.

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61917#Comment_61917

As much as I don't mind personally learning the data types, it would be cool at some point in the future to have kind of a graphical query editor for collections. (It wouldn't be that hard to do because we have had them for aspects of Bible software for ages) The reason I ask this is that I think many would more than likely use this feature if there was one.