Suggestion: Please make the how-to-make-collection easier please.

I don't know much about the rules on how to make a collection, but I've seen some in the forums where it gets really complicated. (thanks for faithlife groups)

Can Logos make these rules simpler for people that don't have time to memorize these rules..

Maybe make the collection with checkboxes like the dropdown on how we search something? or something really simple.. i don't know.

-frustrated user

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Can you give an example of something you want to do that is complicated?

Dave Hooton

I don't know much about the rules about on how to make a collection...Can Logos make these rules simpler for people that don't have time to memorize these rules..

The rules don't have to be remembered when documentation is available on the wiki at http://wiki.logos.com/Collections#Creating_Rules. Nor do they have to be complicated if you have a clear idea of what you want and are prepared to tag resources (mytag), because self-tagging eliminates the need to understand the rationale behind Logos' tagging in fields like Subject. So why don't you provide a couple of ideas for collections you want and see how the community responds?

Some of the examples at the bottom of the above wiki page are quite complex eg. Topical --> (Subject:(Bible—Index,illustration,Quotation), Title:(Barbed,Quotable,Topical), MyTag:Topical) ANDNOT title:”Greek Dictionaries”

This depends on how you understand the the Logos tags Bible—Index,illustration, and Quotation. So see what resources you get with the rule Subject:Bible—Index (for a single value you can drop the brackets/parentheses). It gives me 7 resources, of which I had already tagged six as topical (mytag:topical). The one I hadn't tagged was useless for topics because it has no index to access topics. However, it won't hurt to include it! subject:illustration and subject:quotation give me resources that I don't want as topical resources. Title:(Barbed,Quotable, Topical) i.e. resources with those words in their title, provides nothing with barbed and quotable whilst Topical gives me 5 of the resources from Subject:Bible—Index! The rule ANDNOT title:"Greek Dictionaries" doesn't apply as my Library doesn't have a resource with that in the title.

So that leaves a very simple rule MyTag:Topical for this particular collection because it includes all the resources that I want at the expense of having to tag 8 resources. My actual starting point was resources of type:concordance, so my rule could have been type:concordance! But it included a few that I didn't want. I could have rated them appropriately and used a rule like type:concordance myrating:>3, providing the concordances that I rated as 4 or 5 stars, but tagging them as topical was my preference.

Maybe make the collection with checkboxes like the dropdown on how we search something?

I hope that the example above illustrates that Logos's tagging can't provide exactly what you want, although checkboxes would simplify the selections you need to make. Logos 5.2a has made the tagging and re-tagging of multiple resources much simpler (though not perfect) so I would encourage you to tag and rate your resources so that you can use simple rules for your collections.

However, rules for commentary collections can be daunting, so it is worthwhile using Faithlife for something like Canonical Collections where the rules are fairly standard and Logos' tagging is seen at its best (you can remove the specific titles). But note that they give you volumes that specifically deal with those books of the bible. Commentaries covering the whole bible, the NT books or the OT books are not included e.g. Hebrews -->

Type:Commentary AND (Subject:N.T.Hebrews,Title:”Horae Homileticae Vol. 19”) =>

Type:Commentary AND Subject:N.T.Hebrews ==>

type:commentary subject:(N.T.Hebrews, bible--commentaries, N.T.commentaries)

which includes whole-bible commentaries and those on the New Testament only.

The AND is optional in simple cases like this.

Doc B

Can Logos make these rules simpler for people that don't have time to memorize these rules

Hi Mike,

May I suggest first that if you need help writing a collection rule, ask here on the forums. I asked that once a couple years ago, and got about two or three pages of responses with different ways to do it, and all of them were helpful. If you want a collection of asian recipes that excludes Americanized Chinese TV chefs, I'm sure somebody here can write a rule for you.

Second, if you are memorizing collection rules, you are doing it all wrong. The collection rules use simple Boolean search logic, and this stuff isn't unique to Logos. If you can learn a few Boolean search rules, like AND and OR and ANDNOT, you can write just about any collection rule you need. Have a list of resource types handy (it's in the wiki, as one other responder said) if you need it.

One of the cardinal rules of programming is, the simpler a process is made, the less powerful it becomes. Having a list of check boxes is easier on the front end, but won't allow very much versatility on the back end. Plus, with the size of Logos' resource library, a list of check boxes would be overwhelmingly frustrating for those with libraries of significant size.

Many folks here on the forums are glad to help if you get stuck. But ya gotta ask for it.

HTH.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589513#Comment_589513

It's always interesting when a Logos owner thinks Logos could be simplified. This always brings up the hackles of those who climbed the mountain and see no reason for a ski lift.

'We'll help you struggle up the mountain!! Please let us ... just don't make it easier!!'

But making 'collections' easier I think would be a struggle, since it was badly programmed in the first place. If everyone remembers Libby, you typed in key words, pressed the 'add' or 'subtract' buttons and then saw the results. Fairly simple, intuitive and also highly inaccurate.

So the Logos4 approach skipped the intuitive part, and jumped to the programming part (yes, I program in 5 languages including Prolog, as do many forumites).

Frankly:
1. There's nothing that would prohibit including the simple approach from Libby, in addition to the logic rules that are not easy to remember.
2. There's nothing that would prohibit dragging and dropping MULTIPLE resources from the library to the 'add' box in collections.
3. And there's nothing that would prohibit a 'management tool' to take a look at your library's collections (or simply add a column in the library ... duh)

Now, since these revolutionary ideas look suspiciously like 'easier' (a ski lift), I include the Libby 'let me see my collections in my library' below, just in case someone thinks it's hard to do (a sort by collection, a sort by resource ... both easily includable in the Logos5 library view).

Frankly I haven't a clue after 5 years, that they haven't added a 'collections' column in the library. It's like there's a Logos creed that prohibits 'ease of use'.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589523#Comment_589523

I really disliked libby... Talk about climbing a mountain[+o(].

I used logos 2, and then quit using it for 3, and returned under 4 and now 5. The logos 3 package I purchased second hand after I had already tried, liked and bought an L4 package...

there was no struggle up the mountain. I clicked the wiki page and copied and pasted.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589523#Comment_589523

I'm turning the other cheek, Denise.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589548#Comment_589548

Doc B .... cheek-turning rules are always best executed if observable. Smile.

And abondservant ... we like to go hiking here in northern AZ. And quite often the visitors (tourists) follow us up our 'trail'. On the one hand we feel guilty for not telling them there's an easy trail; we're not on it! And on the other hand, there is some ego-value in watching others follow on the wrong path.

One time, we ended up with a whole group of tourists in a box canyon. Their confused eyes were not pleasant to behold.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589557#Comment_589557

Indeed we all have a particular mountain that we are used to , things that come naturally to my brain may well be puzzles, wrapped in a mystery shrouded in an enigma to another individual.