Reading Plan Headache

I decided to play around with the Reading Plan and see if I could make it work. I chose the latest (free) edition of Themelios to read. In the Passages box, I broke the journal down into page sections based on where the articles started and stopped. My page sections look like this:

1-4,5-7,8,9-16,17,18-25,26-28,29-36,37-45,46-52,53-63,64-69

I input this info, and L5 seemed to take it in stride. Here's what the thing is saying back to me:

Since there are 12 different 'sections' in my list, I chose to cover this in 12 sessions, as shown.

However, when I generated the reading plan, L5 completely ignored my sections, as can bee seen in the calendar view:

This can't be that hard.

????

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Logos really needs to beef up reading plans. Ugh.

SineNomine

I suggest that you see what happens when you deliberately exclude pages 8 and 17. That will tell you whether Logos is ignoring what you put in wholesale or if it is simply interpreting your input differently than you had expected.

Randy W. Sims

[:(] Yep this has been broken too long. We really need this. For what Logos is, this should be pretty high on the todo list. Please.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588361#Comment_588361

Yep this has been broken too long. We really need this. For what Logos is, this should be pretty high on the todo list. Please.

Amen.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588360#Comment_588360

I suggest that you see what happens when you deliberately exclude pages 8 and 17.

Just tried that. Didn't help.

Thomas Ball

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588357#Comment_588357

Logos really needs to beef up reading plans. Ugh.

We know :-) There is an active case regarding this :

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/60992.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83061.aspx

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588404#Comment_588404

Tommy - you need to add spaces after you paste in web links.

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/60992.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83061.aspx

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588404#Comment_588404

Logos really needs to beef up reading plans. Ugh.

We know :-) There is an active case regarding this :

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/60992.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83061.aspx

There have been requests for this since Logos 4 was beta tested. [8-)]

Tommy does active case mean we can expect to see some changes in Logos 5.3 beta or that it will continue to sit in the someday we will think about doing that but not today basket ? Thanks for confirming that at least it has been logged by Logos.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588478#Comment_588478

does active case mean we can expect to see some changes

Unfortunately no. [:s] By "active case," he just means that they have taken note of it. (They may or may not be working on it presently... it may or may not make it into the next beta).

But we WILL keep bugging them about it. [:D] [Y]

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588483#Comment_588483

But we WILL keep bugging them about it.

I knew the answer but in asking the question was highlighting to Logos that having something as an "active case" is no longer an adequate response when it comes to reading plans.

This stuff needs to be getting beta tested much sooner than much later and 5.3 would be nice unless 6 is getting released next week waiting for 6.0 is not an adequate time frame. A lot of Vyrso books, which lack page numbers actually work better with the reading plan tool than do full Logos books simply because the tool is not able to work with the incorrect assumption that a reader wants to read an even number of pages each day and is therefore forced to work with the headings. And since Vyrso headings are normally just title page, table of contents (if it exists) and chapters more often than not we actually get a result that reflects how we would read a monograph. I just count up the number of headings in the book and set it to the number of sessions for the plan. So it is not like the tool can't divide a book up by sections, it already does, it just makes the wrong assumption about how we as users would prefer a book to be divided up. Surely we can get some tweaking make the use of headings the norm as an interim fix until a more comprehensive fix of the tool is completed.

The reading plan document should be as almost embarrassing feature of Logos to people like Bob as is the Handout Document. The difference being something can be salvaged off it is they just give it some attention rather than continuing to ignore the countless requests on these forums, the phone calls and emails to support about why this feature does not work they way users need it to work.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588404#Comment_588404

We know :-) There is an active case regarding this

Suggestion, Tommy:

I understand why using commas to break up sections might not be a great idea, since some (like me) might mean them to be hard breaks in the plan, while others might mean them to simply be sections from a resource that need to be covered.

How about allowing commas to do what they've always done (i.e., L5 breaks up the reading as it sees fit), and allowing us to use a pipe symbol (|, the thing above the forward slash) for hard breaks in the reading plan?

Thus, if I wanted to read these pages of a resource: 1-2,33-45,61-89 then L5 would break it up like it does now.

But if I entered 1-2|33-45|61-89 then L5 would set the reading plan such that in the first session I'd read pages 1-2, in the second session I'd read pages 33-45, etc.

HTH.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588489#Comment_588489

Doc B are you aware that the pipe is already used in reading plans? For instance day you want to read from the gospel of Mark and the epistle to the Romans each day then enter the range as follows: Mk|Ro and it will allocate to you a portion from each text to read each day. Of course if you set the plan equal to 16 days it won't give you a chapter from each book which may or may not be what you want. L3 allowed you to set a flag to break up by chapter or pericope. In L4 and L5 Logos have ignored the the fact this feature was introduced into L3 due to a strongly voiced desire for its need made by users on the logos newsgroups.

You are right though Doc B, there needs to be a way to easily allow for the user and not the software to determine how the reading plan is broken up.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588502#Comment_588502

Doc B are you aware that the pipe is already used in reading plans?

Obviously not!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588485#Comment_588485

I knew the answer but in asking the question was highlighting to Logos that having something as an "active case" is no longer an adequate response when it comes to reading plans.

Ah, come on ... it's worked since L4 was released. You want them to give up a tried and true answer[:(] It's right up there with the inability to put scripture in a prayer request, having a comment automatically close a prayer, and having only one lectionary/reading cycle on the home page. To my mind, not taking care of these small things adds to an image of lack of care for the details as seen in some of the recent sales/package problems.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588648#Comment_588648

I tried Reading Plans on a couple of Lenten devotional resources Logos sold this season, and it was a disaster. I have bought my last devotional inside Logos until reading plans handle them better. If I had any sense I would get a refund since they really couldn't be used to set up a daily reading for Lent.

FYI, it was introduced as a suggestion on uservoice exactly, and only, 7 weeks ago today and it's already up to 14th. Not sure that matters though, in influencing a change.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588390#Comment_588390

I suggest that you see what happens when you deliberately exclude pages 8 and 17.

Just tried that. Didn't help.

So the reading plan is completely ignoring everything you wrote about pages?