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; } } }

Prioritization - testing the waters

MJ. Smith

In another thread, prioritization became of some unexpected consequences. I vented my frustrations with prioritization and became curious how others feel. Please feel free to praise it as well if it works well for you.

Prioritization is unwieldy because:

there are no subdivisions into resource types to organize the list (yes we've found ways to fake it)
no guidance as to what needs to be prioritized (subdivisions would supply)
no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses (metadata required)
no ability to see the entire list to find errors
no search function to find a resource when you have an error in your priorities
can only reposition one item at a time
appear to be unable to enter a series twice - once with advanced restrictions once with general attributes

I have NEVER completed getting my priorities as I really want them

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

no guidance as to what needs to be prioritized (subdivisions would supply)

Is the wiki not providing adequate guidance? However, I agree that named subdivisions would be much better e.g. Bibles, Commentaries, "Bible" Dictionaries, Greek Lexicons, Hebrew Lexicons.

no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses (metadata required)

Advanced Prioritization does this (depending on what you mean by "default").

no search function to find a resource when you have an error in your priorities

Do you mean a "Find" function for resources in the Prioritization list? That would be useful.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544652#Comment_544652

Is the wiki not providing adequate guidance?

I was thinking in terms of the app itself - intuitive GUI is a term I've heard Logos use a lot.

Advanced Prioritization does this (depending on what you mean by "default").

at 700 entries or so for my comparatively small library ... with opening each resource, checking the header material, adding the book at the bottom and moving it at a slow scroll to its appropriate location ... I know this is a function that seems to matter only to those of us using a number of commentaries that are directly tied to specific editions (Vulgate, D-R, Coverdale ...)

Do you mean a "Find" function for resources in the Prioritization list?

Yes, exactly.

Mark Barnes

Prioritisation is a personal thing. I will say that you have to go with the way that Logos has designed it. There's no point resisting, and trying to massage it into working in a way other than the way it's been designed for.

there are no subdivisions into resource types to organize the list (yes we've found ways to fake it)

I see no point in having sub-divisions. They're merely decorative.

I would like the ability to filter the list so it just showed resources that supported a particular datatype. However, Logos make a clear decision to move away from the L3 model where you had entirely different prioritisation lists for every datatype. Whilst that was much more flexible, most users found it much harder to set up, and I think I'm right in saying that hardly anyone used it. I know I didn't. Logos therefore re-designed the system to make it much simpler. That brings it's own limitations, but advanced prioritisation means you can still do all you could do.

no guidance as to what needs to be prioritized

Prioritise everything you can "look up", where you care about the results. Personally, I'll only prioritise a particular datatype if/when I get results from a lookup that I don't like.

no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses

I don't understand this. I presume it's a reference to the Syriac version in ANF we were discussing on a different thread. The problem there is the resource, not prioritisation. It's an edge case, and I'm not sure anything useful could be done.

no ability to see the entire list to find errors

no search function to find a resource when you have an error in your priorities

A find option would be useful.

can only reposition one item at a time

I'm struggling to think of occasions when this would have been useful. If you're thinking that it would have been useful to move all your Patristics above all your commentaries, because of your difficulty in the other thread, then I don't think that would be a good idea. You'd probably only break something else.

appear to be unable to enter a series twice - once with advanced restrictions once with general attributes

You can do this if you set the one with advanced prioritisation first, and then the general one afterwards. If you do it the other way around, Logos will think you're adding a duplicate and remove the first general one before you have a chance to set the advanced prioritisation on the second one.

I have NEVER completed getting my priorities as I really want them

I'm nervous about suggesting this, but I'll risk it anyway [:)]. I think part of the problem is that you don't fully appreciate how prioritisation is designed to work. I know the UI doesn't scale for large prioritisation lists, but it will do almost everything you want (apart from the different translations issue). If you've got 700 entries for a 'relatively small' library, you're almost certainly doing it wrong. (I have 293 for a library of over 10,000 resources.) I know it's difficult to let us see your prioritisation list (several cropped screenshots is the only way, unless you want to upload your keylinkmanager.db), but if you want to do that, I'd be very happy to try and deal with specific issues for you, or give you feedback on your existing list.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544667#Comment_544667

no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses

I don't understand this.

Whenever I use a commentary or monograph, I prefer to look first at the translation it is using. It often shows me why a comment is made while my highest priority Bible does not ... especially when they are working off different textual traditions. I suspect that this matters primarily to traditions that work off the Septuagint, Vulgate or Peshitta.

can only reposition one item at a time

I'm struggling to think of occasions when this would have been useful.

At the moment, I am prioritizing the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary volumes for advanced prioritization to permit the creation of a Anchor Yale Bible built through the use of dynamic references. It must be done via prioritization to select only the Bible text. Defining the resource does not produce the desired results. But I am constantly adding priority items in small groups rather than individual items.

appear to be unable to enter a series twice - once with advanced restrictions once with general attributes

You can do this if you set the one with advanced prioritisation first, and then the general one afterwards.

Thanks for the info. I'll give that a try. Unfortunately this is the reverse of life where I first know the general priority and then discover the need for the advanced priority.

I think part of the problem is that you don't fully appreciate how prioritisation is designed to work

That is possible. As for the 700 - I've never actually gotten there. It is a matter of my preference to utilize the same translation ... or at least a translation from the same tradition - one misses allusions and echoes otherwise. What I have is:

24 categories of priorities for standard lookups - 5 deep when appropriate
advanced priorities to ensure that the entire canon exists in my "top five" - found to be necessary when working with the Psalms of Solomon
priorities for the lectionaries in those cases where particular translation(s) are required or recommended
priorities for liturgical resources (Missal, BCP ...) where particular translation(s) are required or recommended ... some important translations are missing but ...
priorities deeper than 5 to control order of commentaries and insure prioritized commentaries for entire canon
advanced priorities tying particular translation(s) to particular resources

I know it's difficult to let us see your prioritisation list (several cropped screenshots is the only way, unless you want to upload your keylinkmanager.db), but if you want to do that, I'd be very happy to try and deal with specific issues for you, or give you feedback on your existing list.

I'll take you up on this as soon as I finish my current prototypes.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544654#Comment_544654

with opening each resource, checking the header material, adding the book at the bottom and moving it at a slow scroll to its appropriate location

In this case you are prioritizing bibles for use with commentaries. Drag the bible from Library to a position which is above the general Prioritization for bibles and set Advanced Prioritization (if already in the list set Advanced on the list entry first, then drag the bible over for its general prioritization). I see that Advanced does not allow you to set the series as a "Resource" so this could chew up a few hundred entries at one per volume!?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544677#Comment_544677

I see that Advanced does not allow you to set the series as a "Resource" so this could chew up a few hundred entries at one per volume!?

Exactly!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544667#Comment_544667

I think part of the problem is that you don't fully appreciate how prioritisation is designed to work.

I'm going to revise this suggestion. I now think that the main problem is that you're too particular [:P].

no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses

It has exactly that ability, and you're using it. It's caused Advanced Prioritisation. (It can't do that for a series, but it can do it for a resource.)

I am prioritizing the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary volumes for advanced prioritization to permit the creation of a Anchor Yale Bible built through the use of dynamic references.

That's an interesting project, but it's not what prioritisation is for, and it's not what dynamic text is for. You're working against the system, instead of with it, and it's no wonder it's causing you headaches. Dynamic text is to allow you to dynamically insert text (so users can choose their own versions). If you know what 'version' you want, you should be copy/pasting the text in from the resource. The result would be a proper Bible, which would also be much more useful.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544736#Comment_544736

I now think that the main problem is that you're too particular .

I prefer the term "precise" ... but look at my background - payroll, computers, academia all require precision.[;)]

no ability to default a resource to the translation it uses

It has exactly that ability,

By "default" I mean tell it to use what the metadata tells it the resources uses not that I look up each resource individually and set it. This is a request I've made several times before.

You're working against the system,

Nope ... If I can appropriately use a lectionary to read through the Authorized Version (BCP morning/evening prayer) why is a lectionary to read through the Anchor Bible translation not fair game? I personally think Logos should provide full Bible functionarlity for the commentaries that include new translations (which they have done in some of the classic commentaries). I would love to be able to do a text comparison of Anchor, Hermeneia and NRSV[:P]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544900#Comment_544900

A statement of purpose:

I really am not trying to push Logos beyond what it does. What I am trying to do is to make sure Logos fits the needs of two markets into which it is expanding:

liturgical churches
religious education staff (as opposed to preachers)

Liturgical churches in general use multiple translations and have a deep history for which they need to consider "old translations". Their liturgical books often have prescribed translations (Coverdale psalms) which vary by location. They generally have multiple scripture passages on which their service is based and the interplay among these passages (even last week's, next week's) is a frequent element of the sermon.

Religious education staff often use dated materials, need quick access to potential answers and questions, need to track the overall shape of the program over time, create handouts etc.

Hence, I've been testing out dated materials implementation, faith community based devotions, long term religious education projects etc. Be glad I'm not testing liturgical planning.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544900#Comment_544900

By "default" I mean tell it to use what the metadata tells it the resources uses not that I look up each resource individually and set it.

I know you've made that request. But I'm confident most users wouldn't want it that way, and even those that did wouldn't necessarily want it exactly the way you do. (So whilst I would want to use the LXX rather than the MT for some commentaries, I wouldn't necessarily want the same edition of the LXX as you.) So even if Logos did this, because you're 'precise', you'd probably change it anyway.... [:P]

a lectionary to read through the Anchor Bible translation not fair game

Of course it's fair game — just not with dynamic text. Logos doesn't support it. It's as simple as that. (And it's hard to see how the existing architecture could be re-engineered to support it.) And because there's a better way

I personally think Logos should provide full Bible functionality for the commentaries that include new translations (which they have done in some of the classic commentaries).

They did it with ICC, too. I think they only do it when the original print resource contains an appendix or introduction with the whole Bible together. They don't appear to do it when the translation is scattered through the resource. I agree that it's a nice bonus when you get that. That said, if they did it for every volume of every commentary that provided its own translation, my library would feel very overwhelmed with fragments of Bible text.

There's a possibility that there might be licencing issues, in some cases, too. For example, the translation in Tom Wright's For Everyone series became the basis for his Kingdom New Testament. The publishers might not want to allow the For Everyone translations to be brought together.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544929#Comment_544929

That said, if they did it for every volume of every commentary that provided its own translation, my library would feel very overwhelmed with fragments of Bible text.

After hiding the Targums & the Earliest manuscripts, I would cheerfully hide commentaries with biblical aspirations[:)] Also, not a good idea with the current debate over indexing because every bible is indexed twice and that could amount to several hundred resources for some users.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544929#Comment_544929

This has been a *fascinating* discussion, though it has convinced me that I don't know what the heck I'm doing owning this software. I think I should have bought a frisbee instead. They are cheaper and a lot less difficult to master. [^o)]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544944#Comment_544944

This has been a *fascinating* discussion, though it has convinced me that I don't know what the heck I'm doing owning this software. I think I should have bought a frisbee instead.

Just because some people use paper to do this, doesn't mean that I've given up owning and using paper [:D].

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544929#Comment_544929

But I'm confident most users wouldn't want it that way, and even those that did wouldn't necessarily want it exactly the way you do.

Mark, I am NOT saying that it should be the default behavior ... but that one should be able to make resource default to the translation they use in a workable manner i.e. not 700 entries at 2 minutes per entry. We've been through this a number of times and I know it doesn't matter to you. You don't run into the Vulgate/Septuagint/Masoretic issue very often. The fact that you have no need of it has little baring on whether it is a serious need. There are many original language features that I never need but support because they are needed by those working in the original languages.

when the original print resource contains an appendix or introduction with the whole Bible together.

This is what I've assumed is the criteria as well.

every volume of every commentary that provided its own translation, my library would feel very overwhelmed with fragments of Bible text.

I'd not expect units of less than a book to be keyed as Bible. It would not overwhelm my library but it would make it much more useful. Perhaps you need to scale back your library[;)]

There's a possibility that there might be licencing issues,

I'm not privy to Logos contracts - it may be a barrier in some case; it may be restrictions on how it is implemented.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544941#Comment_544941

After hiding the Targums & the Earliest manuscripts, I would cheerfully hide commentaries with biblical aspirations

[:D]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544969#Comment_544969

We've been through this a number of times and I know it doesn't matter to you. You don't run into the Vulgate/Septuagint/Masoretic issue very often. The fact that you have no need of it has little baring on whether it is a serious need.

It's not a question of whether it matters to me. I'm very happy for features to be added to Logos that are useful to others (like the recent improvements to lectionary support). My point is much more that prioritisation is an area that affects almost everything in Logos, and that tweaking it to better support some ways of working will inevitable affect other ways of working, possibly adversely. Any improvement in this area needs to be an improvement for everyone, or at least nearly everyone.

I just don't think it's practical to have Logos select which Bible should go with which resource. What if I don't have the Bible they suggest? Should they suggest a second-choice? Or a third? What if I don't want the Bible they suggest? What if I don't understand why a resource isn't using the Bible I've sent in prioritisation?

I do think it's practical to allow users to select which Bible goes with which resource, and as you know, prioritisation already allows you to do that. You say it's not workable, and I would broadly agree. But the problem there is with the Prioritisation UI, not with the underlying structure. If there was a proper Prioritisation tool (like the Collections tool), then UI changes could potentially make it much simpler to do what you want, without making it a more complex experience for others.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545031#Comment_545031

I just don't think it's practical to have Logos select which Bible should go with which resource. What if I don't have the Bible they suggest? Should they suggest a second-choice? Or a third? What if I don't want the Bible they suggest? What if I don't understand why a resource isn't using the Bible I've sent in prioritisation?

Ah - finally I realize that you completely misunderstand the suggestion - which explains why many of your arguments have seemed like straw men. What I want is for Logos to capture in metadata what translation the commentary or monograph states that it uses unless marked otherwise. This is information usually available on the copyright page of a book.

My point is much more that prioritisation is an area that affects almost everything in Logos, and that tweaking it to better support some ways of working will inevitable affect other ways of working, possibly adversely.

Irrelevant to this particular case. Adding the data of what translation is used to the metadata has no effect on the current UI. Adding an option to use the translation(s) specified in the metadata has no effect on the current UI. Only when someone chooses to set some resources or series to default to the translation(s) specified in the metadata would it potentially affect an individual's current priority setup. I don't see why users should have to duplicate each others' work of reading the copyright page to capture translation information which can easily be done once for everyone. It's no different than publisher, original publication date ... all of which are found on the same page. Besides, I'm too good an analyst to bother to suggest something without knowing that it can be implemented without screwing everyone up.[:P] It's been 30 years since I made that mistake.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545038#Comment_545038

What I want is for Logos to capture in metadata what translation the commentary or monograph states that it uses unless marked otherwise.

That's not all you want. Judging by your second paragraph, you also want the option to be able to use that data to affect prioritisation, and you want to be able to turn that on or off for individual resources and/or series.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545040#Comment_545040

You are correct Mark - I structured the post deliberately to correct the "false propositions" , to get technical about it, in your post. While I now see the manner in which you misunderstand the proposal, I am, apparently, still at a loss as to how best to correct that misunderstanding.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545047#Comment_545047

I am, apparently, still at a loss as to how best to correct that misunderstanding.

That's exactly how I feel about the other thread [:D]! I do have 'flu at the moment, so perhaps I'm just being a bit slow. But I suspect the problem is rather that we're coming at this from entirely different angles — me from the perspective of the underlying architecture, and you from the perspective of usability. I was going to say we will have to agree to disagree, but more truthfully, I think we will have to agree to accept that don't really understand each other!