Quality and Update Cycles Beyond Logos 6

Sorry Bob but your post doesn't give me anything to complain about. What fun is that? Seriously, the devil is in the details of documentation, subscription features and transparency. Done right it will work. Done wrong and it will just increase the ratio of whines to praise.

Rayner

I like the sound of all of it (including shorter release cycles) except for the point about subscriptions. The only thing I'd be interested in by subscription would be up to date journals, which I'd then want to purchase licences for later (once they were a few years old)...

Perhaps I've misunderstood though... When you say:

Wouldn't some users rather subscribe and get new content every month rather than have that new content 'sit in a drawer' for two years, helping no one, waiting for the big bundle release?

I would say that it doesn't matter to me that I receive content quickly so much as that I can keep it permanently even if I stop paying the subscription. I would choose receiving content slowly in order to keep the content permanently over receiving content quickly, but only being able to access it temporarily, simply because I have so much content that I'm not in a huge hurry to read extra resources. Except journals. I would really like up to date academic journals.

Also, I think the point about focus on documentation and improving existing resources will make lots of people very happy.

You can certainly do whatever it is you wish to do. Your company. Just deliver what you charge for. And communicate when you don't. It's not complicated.

JAL

1. More communication. (It seems like that's the solution to most problems...)

More complete documentation is imperative.

Thank you for the very open forums in which we users may bark.
Thank you for considering the barking and responding substantively.
Thank you for producing products which we find useful and can reasonably hope will improve.
I trust that you are in a position to weigh what is written in these forums against fact. Thank you for the transparency of your responses.

2. Shorter cycles. (This is the new part.)

As described here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/98979/685108.aspx#685108

This seems hopeful.

We know that all of our users are interested in a solid, fast, quality product. And we know that most of them are also interested (enough to pay -- which feeds us!) in new tools and content. It's a perpetual balancing act...

I've added emphasis to the above quote.

I'm not sure I understand why it's a balancing act to add innovation without breaking the core functions.

Mark Barnes

A. Our Content Production team allocates 15% of their effort to maintenance on existing resources… The team is also planning to post more often, and to be clearer about what they're doing, so all their hard word doesn't just silently download in the night.

I'd love to see a monthly blog post which said, "Here are the resources we've updated this month", with a brief notes on what's new. That would really help to reinforce some of the extra value we get with Logos resources.

We're not going to retreat to three or four year release cycles.

I'm glad to hear this (and I'm not surprised). As you say, it's the way the world is going (or has gone).

Wouldn't some users rather subscribe and get new content every month rather than have that new content 'sit in a drawer' for two years, helping no one, waiting for the big bundle release?

If you're considering a subscription offering and shorter release cycles, please consider implementing three different models:

Rental — pay $50/month for your base package. You can use the resources so long as you keep paying.
Lease — pay $200/month for the first 12 months, then $50/month thereafter. After the first year you get to keep everything you have even if you stop paying. It also rewards Logos for producing new content (because if you don't, we'll stop paying).
Pay-As-You-Go — Pay $2,000 upfront and keep everything. Pay smaller dyamically-priced upgrade fees for new content, whenever you want.

I'd love the lease model. That way, I get the benefit of fixed pricing, but I also keep what I've paid for.

Sean

What do you think?

-- Bob

Regarding subscriptions: when I'm doing an in-depth project, I'd be interested in being able to pay to open up by categories a wide range of resources that I don't own, such as all journals in Logos, all (non-PD) Bible commentaries, etc., for a month or three, then unsubscribing and closing them up when I'm done. That would be about the extent of my interest; I would have no interest in subscribing to get in-house produced content (sorry, but that's the way it is).

EastTN

I like the sound of all of it (including shorter release cycles) except for the point about subscriptions. The only thing I'd be interested in by subscription would be up to date journals...

... I would choose receiving content slowly in order to keep the content permanently over receiving content quickly, but only being able to access it temporarily, simply because I have so much content that I'm not in a huge hurry to read extra resources. Except journals. I would really like up to date academic journals.

I agree. The only reasons I see wanting a subscription would be to:

1) Have an equivalent within Logos to EBSCO for theological journals;

2) Access expensive specialist resources for a limited time for a paper I'm working on.

Bruce Dunning

You are right, and we are working on it.

I always appreciate your openness and your continually effort to improve. Thank you!

Everything is getting more complicated.

That seems to be the norm these days for many things. It is easy for someone on the "outside" of any issue offer criticism but not really fully understand the extent of the issue. Thank you for reminding us of this.

Our planned solution.

1. More communication. (It seems like that's the solution to most problems...)

I agree that communication is at the root of most problems. Thanks for your commitment to improve this.

2. Shorter cycles...(This is the new part.)

Personally, I like your reasoning for shorter cycles and would prefer this and I like the idea that those who do not like this can opt out.

We're considering subscription content.

Personally I don't like subscriptions but I know others do and understand the reasoning for this.

There are renters and there are owners. Some people stream all their music and all their movies. Some people lovingly catalog their audio CDs and buy their favorite movies and shows in boxed sets of DVDs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each model. We get it, and we want to support both models.

I'm glad you recognize this. I'm one of those who prefers to own than rent. Supporting both models is a great way to go.

we know that many of you need offline use of your Bible study tools and we will keep it a top priority.

Great to hear that this will be a priority moving forward.

Thanks Bob for listening to our feedback. [Y]

abondservant

Bob - I like what I hear. Especially about not forcing us to rent, and the faster product cycle.

I like new features [Y].

Blessings brother.

ALSO, if you need another Alpha or Private Beta Tester

(‾◡◝)

At the risk of being branded a contrarian ...

Perhaps bending over backwards to try and develop an ever increasingly complex product via public transparency and consensus is counterproductive. Rather than keeping a wet finger in the forum air and trying to maintain a constant dialog with users, maybe Logos needs to 'Nike-up' and just do it without involving the users so much. I know the concept of constant dialog sounds like a great idea (and it probably was a necessity in the early years when the company and the product were smaller and more fragile), nevertheless, it becomes unwieldy much as pure democracy does with a growing population. You and your managers undoubtedly know the product, the business, the competition, the variables, the limitations, the market, and the possibilities far better and more intimately than any of us could possibly know them, and as a result, you and they are much more qualified to productively fix, refine, and develop the product than trying to crowd-source and dialog everything. Sure, user input will always be of value, and similarly, an occasional note from on high as to which way the product is headed is always appreciated, but, perhaps far less of both is needed than you perceive.

For example, if Logos thinks that a some sort of a subscription model is the way to go, then don't ask, go for it. BTW, the marketplace will let you know quickly, ruthlessly, and more accurately than a few forum voices if you have a winner, Windows 8, or something that just needs more tweaking.

For example, if Logos thinks a regular patch Tuesday, once per month, like clockwork, instead of having crisis-like, internal fire drills trying to fix this or that whine from the forums and then issuing hurried fixes, then don't ask, go for it.

For example, if Logos thinks one or two regularly scheduled reveals per year of major new versions instead of publishing a continual string of public betas, then don't ask, go for it.

Bottom line ... More structure, less Kum-By-Ya.

Just my two cents [mo]

Dan Francis

ALSO, if you need another beta tester

set update channel to beta [:P]

abondservant

For example, if Logos thinks that a some sort of a subscription model is the way to go, then don't ask, go for it. BTW, the marketplace will let you know quickly, ruthlessly, and more accurately than a few forum voices if you have a winner, Windows 8, or something that just needs more tweaking.

That made me laugh. Love the synonymizing of windows 8 and failure

JAL

...maybe Logos needs to 'Nike-up' and just do it without involving the users so much.

That Logos dating game thing would really have hit the spot.

Edwin Bowden

Bob,

I always appreciate it when you draw back the curtain and let us see what is going on behind the scenes at Logos. Unfortunately, it usually happens when someone has gone on a rant based on a off-base assumption about the sinister plans or intentions of Logos.

I have had the joy over the last couple of months in helping and guiding a graduate student buy his first Logos software pkg. One of the key points that I made to him was that you can trust Logos. After spending thousands on 2 Platinum base pkgs, he is very happy and excited.

I also post daily on a FB page devoted to helping Logos Users in my denomination. I post free and great values that I find as well as tips and topics.

Logos users are a diverse group in their interests and where they are in their life. Be sure that you remember the variety of situations that Logos users are in. A variety of solutions (like Mark Barnes outlined) may be necessary. I am now retired, which means I have limited finances. I have been teaching Sunday School for over 45 yrs. Logos has been the best thing that ever happened to my class. I don't know if I will still be teaching when my final volumes of EEC are released, but I bought it anyway because of my confidence in Logos.

Lack of communication has always been one of the weaknesses of Logos. Communication related to the release of L6 was a major improvement over recent releases. I encourage as much communication and transparency as possible.

Shorter cycles seems to be a good idea. As major new parts of the program become available, users should be able to access them in some way. The new features of L6 intrigued me, but I was not able to add a huge amount of resources to my library. I am in the "buy only if I can't live without it" stage. L5 Platinum plus lots of extras (4300 total) makes a good library for me. L6 Gold was the right upgrade move for me.

David Potete

I love Logos. But if you go to only subscription, then I'm done. Maybe I'm old school, but I want to keep what I buy.

Everett Headley

In looking at your plan above, I am trying to apply it to the progression of the Journal saga.

It would all make sense, in that I see what you are trying do bringing them in house, increasing their quality and offering them in a greater selection.

But, in the meantime, why stop another project for 2 years that was fulfilling this need (to whatever quality/capacity it was) before Logos' Journals are completed? It would seem that your financials would be increased by the revenue generated; your customers would be satisfied with what they already had; and when you rolled out your final project it would polished.

Kevin A Lewis

Thanks Bob

I appears you have either been reading the forums extensively or had a team that does and reports "up" very effectively. You seem to have addressed nearly all the major issues that have been raised here since launch.

That said "Communication" is clearly the key - and that goes at least two ways.

We need to communicate with Faithlife - and know we have been heard and understood (even if not agreed with).
You need to communicate with users (and potential users) - and know you have been heard and understood.

And so these two in cyclic form should work in something like harmony - I know, far easier said than done, as different types of communication require different mechanisms. (documentation, blogs, forums, bug tracking, emails, phone calls etc.)

Anyway every blessing and success to all at Faithlife and their wider family (and families!)

Shalom.

Bill Cook

The subscription model will price me out of being a user. It is a generalization I realize, but it seems that almost every company that tries it alienates many users. Adobe comes to mind. But, they don't have content as much as new features and they pass those features on to users who pay for that model. But, for some users it is just too expensive. I don't need every book that comes out. I like the datasets and neat features. My main complaints are the speed of the software and the speed of the software and the speed of the software - in all phases of use. But, I wish it would work as smoothly as the marketing videos on my machine - which is not a slow machine... And, yes, I have done all of the suggestions... I have added a fast SSD Drive, I have a fast graphics card with lots if video RAM. The increase in speed is more hopeful than noticeable.

Mike Binks

I would support a subscription model that was on a sliding scale.

If I owned half the resources in, say Reformed Gold, then I might rent the other half for half the full rental.

If I decided that I needed the resources in Platinum then I would expect the rental to raise but still get full credit for the bits that I owned.

If I decided that I really wanted to purchase a resource then the rental would need to go down.

It would be a complicated scheme but that, after all, is why you employ programmers.

John Duffy

If you're considering a subscription offering and shorter release cycles, please consider implementing three different models:

Rental — pay $50/month for your base package. You can use the resources so long as you keep paying.

Lease — pay $200/month for the first 12 months, then $50/month thereafter. After the first year you get to keep everything you have even if you stop paying. It also rewards Logos for producing new content (because if you don't, we'll stop paying).

Pay-As-You-Go — Pay $2,000 upfront and keep everything. Pay smaller dyamically-priced upgrade fees for new content, whenever you want.

I'd love the lease model. That way, I get the benefit of fixed pricing, but I also keep what I've paid for.

I like the sound of those options. Yet, I think that another option could be: Pay-as-you-go with subscription for new Faithlife content. That is, once the upfront cost is paid, a monthly subscription allows access to the new datasets etc. which Logos will keep rolling out over time. That would in effect be like purchasing an upgrade (e.g. L7) and paying for later dataset releases (instead of receiving them free at present after the L6 release). Or again, for existing users this could look like a Subscription only option which provides (more frequent?) core crossgrades, as well as new datasets etc. as they are released.

But aside from that, one major point regarding subscription still needs to be clarified: is the subscribed content limited to Faithlife proprietary resources such as datasets, Lexham Press, or public domain resources (e.g. classic commentaries)? Or, can new resources from external publishers be subscribed to (e.g. new releases from Baker Academic, or new NICOT/NT volumes)?

I suspect that when subscriptions are refered to by Bob, they are limited to Faithlife proprietary content. This seems to be the case not only because that 'seems' to be all that is referred to in connection with subscriptions in posts such as Bob's above, but also because I think that it would be difficult to get many external publishers onboard for sales models which leased or rented their products.

Since there is such a wide variety of user purchasing preferences, I suspect that subscriptions (rental/lease) of products from external publishers would either be too generalised to be cost effective (too many resources in a general subscription which a user does not want to pay for), or at the other end of the scale a highly-customised 'subscription' could in practice look little different from monthly payments towards Logos store credit (like monthly payment plans before purchase rather than after purchase).

The point I'm making, or rather the question I'm asking, is whether or not 'subscription' applies only to Logos proprietary content, or (rental or lease/own) resources from other publishers. I would be most interested in the latter.

I suspect that Faithlife will proceed with subscriptions to proprietary content, and hope that other publishers will come on board with this relatively new sales model for digital resources. But I would be (pleasantly) surprised if others came on board quickly too.

EDIT: A subscription to a new or upraged base package would be very attractive if it were a lease/own as in option 3 above (to keep all the content after a certain period of time), with an ongoing subscription to new Faithlife resources.

Eli Evans (Logos)

I love Logos. But if you go to only subscription, then I'm done. Maybe I'm old school, but I want to keep what I buy.

Hi, David. We agree. Bob wrote near the bottom of his post that we intend to continue the "old school" keep-what-you-buy model alongside any new approaches we try:

Some people stream all their music and all their movies. Some people lovingly catalog their audio CDs and buy their favorite movies and shows in boxed sets of DVDs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each model. We get it, and we want to support both models.

So, not going subscription-only any time soon. Hope that helps, thanks!

Matthew C Jones

Our Content Innovation department is working on better documentation of our data sets.

The loud clamour in the forums is not just for data set documentation but for comprehensive user manual covering all aspects of the program.

If you don't like shorter cycles, you can just skip them.

Users can also wait two years to adopt the release. (i.e. Upgrade to Logos 6 right before Logos 7 is to be released.) That way the bugs will be worked out.

We're considering subscription content.

Personally not interested in them but if others are, fine. Just do not go exclusively subscription based. Rentals make sense on journals and MobleEd courses.

we know that many of you need offline use of your Bible study tools and we will keep it a top priority.

Great.

What do you think?

I love Logos 6 and the new features. I wish it were not at all buggy. I agree you are right to release material and features now and polish them as we go on. My library now has nearly 17,000 resources and there are still lots of resources I want to add. But PLEASE get a Restoration Movement package/bundle together.

Your employees are the best! Your company, Faithlife, is generous. I pray for your family, leadership, and success regularly. I hope that all users will get more satisfaction using all Faithlife's products. Thank you for asking for our input.

Rayner

Hi, David. We agree. Bob wrote near the bottom of his post that we intend to continue the "old school" keep-what-you-buy model alongside any new approaches we try:

Some people stream all their music and all their movies. Some people lovingly catalog their audio CDs and buy their favorite movies and shows in boxed sets of DVDs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each model. We get it, and we want to support both models.

So, not going subscription-only any time soon. Hope that helps, thanks!

Reassuring, thanks. Any word on the idea of subscriptions for up to date academic journals?

Mark Barnes

Here's a suggestion for a premium rental.

What if every quarter 10% of the base package is replaced? If you're a renter (or a leaser) you get to keep the 'old' 10%, and you also get the new 10%, so your library goes up by several dozen resources every quarter, but your rental price stays the same.

Kyle G. Anderson

A. Our Content Production team allocates 15% of their effort to maintenance on existing resources… The team is also planning to post more often, and to be clearer about what they're doing, so all their hard word doesn't just silently download in the night.

I'd love to see a monthly blog post which said, "Here are the resources we've updated this month", with a brief notes on what's new. That would really help to reinforce some of the extra value we get with Logos resources.

First, Would the forums work for you? Prior to L6 we had a monthly cycle of pushing out updated resources. When L6 hit we changed this to an every-other-week cycle. Now that the fever of L6 is slowing down for you, we will be pulling back to a monthly cycle.

Our plan was to provide a list of all updated resources and how they were updated via the forums.

Second, Why a monthly cycle? It's not a magical number. We simply want to balance responsive turn-around times on updated resources--especially for non-critical but urgent resource updates--while minimizing the frequency users will be asked to download and re-index their library.

Todd Phillips

First, Would the forums work for you? Prior to L6 we had a monthly cycle of pushing out updated resources. When L6 hit we changed this to an every-other-week cycle. Now that the fever of L6 is slowing down for you, we will be pulling back to a monthly cycle.

Our plan was to provide a list of all updated resources and how they were updated via the forums.

A blog entry would allow the info to be seen on the Logos application home page. It would be nice if there was some way that info could be transmitted to the app. An update-specific blog would be a simple way to do it.

Todd's mention of the blog is a good one.

Like a few, I don't see the blog nor the homepage. I do see the forum. But from a corporate perspective, I doubt 'the forum' is that popular (relative to total user population). I'd bet Facebook is a bigger splash (though I don't do Facebook).

An idea I like, but will likely be in the minority, would be a digital monthly magazine automatically downloaded. (That sounds suspiciously like another magazine we know about.) But as much as I carp, I DO wish I knew MORE about Logos ... the software, new resources, special groupings of resources, expertise in Logos itself, and so on.

I still argue that communication is marketing. People actually want to know more. It's their puppy ... they like to feed him.

EDIT: If someone's wondering why a digital magazine vs a blog, the latter in my mind, has to remain broad-based. General interest. But a digital magazine allows for the news of the new set of sumerian inscriptions, or an agreement with a specific pastor. It can be very detailed, and doesn't have to 'fill the space'.

John Duffy

Here's a suggestion for a premium rental.

What if every quarter 10% of the base package is replaced? If you're a renter (or a leaser) you get to keep the 'old' 10%, and you also get the new 10%, so your library goes up by several dozen resources every quarter, but your rental price stays the same.

[Y]

EastTN

Here's a suggestion for a premium rental.

What if every quarter 10% of the base package is replaced? If you're a renter (or a leaser) you get to keep the 'old' 10%, and you also get the new 10%, so your library goes up by several dozen resources every quarter, but your rental price stays the same.

I'd rather see a "rent to own" deal. I anticipate that my primary interest in rentals would be for short-term research projects or specific classes. But if a resource were useful enough that I keep subscribing month after month, then that's probably one that I'm eventually going to want to own. Knowing that I have that option would make a rental more attractive.

delete

James Hudson

Wouldn't some users rather subscribe and get new content every month rather than have that new content 'sit in a drawer' for two years, helping no one, waiting for the big bundle release?

Neither option.....

Not quite sure what is meant / implied by this question. Does the word 'rather' suggest an 'either ... or' scenario? Otherwise what is the point of the question? I can't answer 'yes' to this and I can't answer 'no'!

I'm not into subscription and want to own my resources / data-sets etc. However I like to keep up to date with all content / features.

I would hope that if subscription customers get the latest updates "every month" then we non-subscription lovers won't have to wait "two years". I don't mind paying every month if I get to keep what I pay for!

As for the other ideas - liking the sound of communication and shorter release cycles (we might get Logos 10 before 2020 that way!!!)

I also agree that quality over quantity is the way to go!

delete

Thanks, Bob.

I like the idea of more communication and documentation. I'm fine with shorter release cycles. I have little to no personal interest in subscription content, but can see how it might be of interest to some.

One other area where I'd like you to take action to improve quality: I would like to you to put in place a systematic way to make sure bug reports from the forums do not fall through the cracks.

I have been one of the more prolific bug reporters on the forums, and I've always had the experience that a certain number of my bug reports fall through the cracks if I don't keep track of them and go back to check on those threads to see if someone has responded to them. Just recently, Mark Barnes brought to my attention a bug report of mine from two months ago that had never been seen or responded to by a Faithlife employee. I have long since stopped keeping track (due to lack of time, and frustration, and a "it shouldn't be my responsibility to make sure these don't fall through the cracks"), but bug reports are still falling through the cracks.

A proposal: Treat the forums as a kind of bug database (I remember RAID from Microsoft but I don't know what sort of system you use internally), and track bug reports on it as aggressively as you would an internal bug database.

1. Any thread that contains a bug report gets marked as such somehow (add a new forum feature for this if necessary). The user who posts the thread, or an MVP or Faithlife employee could have access to set that flag, so that we can make sure that the time we post a bug report that it won't fall through the cracks.

2. Assign enough Faithlife employees to regularly keep up with the forums looking for bug-flagged threads, and don't leave any stone unturned. They should also be looking for new posts in general and flagging them as bug reports if the user didn't know to do that when they posted it. MVPs can help with this latter task.

3. Once a bug-thread is acknowledged as being a real bug, an internal case gets created for it (or a link to this thread gets added to an existing case), and a comment placed on the thread to that effect so that the bug reporter knows their bug has been noticed. Note that this is already happening most of the time, but I still think some percentage of bugs (like the one Mark found) are getting overlooked. If it is not actually a bug (e.g., user misunderstood how the feature is supposed to work, or it was a request for a future feature rather than a bug) then a comment to that effect is placed in the thread and the bug-flag is cleared (or set to some other status such as REJECTED). If the bug is a real bug, once it has been entered in the internal bug database, the bug-flag is changed to something else to note that status (e.g., from REPORTED to ACKNOWLEDGED).

4. Once the bug is fixed, a comment is placed in the thread saying what version the bug is fixed in and the bug-flag is cleared or set to a new status (e.g., FIXED).

5. There should be some way to view the list of active bug-threads so that the employees tasked with doing this can see them and make sure they've not missed any REPORTED bugs.

There will need to be some cooperation from users to make this work very smoothly. Good bug reports would make a big difference. A clear subject line that identifies the post as a bug report (prefaced by BUG: and the summary of the bug's unexpected behavior; not snarky comments like some people sometimes put there in the subject line). And ideally only one bug report per thread. If we can educate at least the forum regulars to always adhere to these principles that would help this system work.

I'm sure y'all can refine this idea and make it more workable and more congruous with your internal bug database.

Thanks for considering it.

abondservant

So, not going subscription-only any time soon. Hope that helps, thanks!

That means it might still be an option at some point in the future?!

Mark Barnes

First, Would the forums work for you? Prior to L6 we had a monthly cycle of pushing out updated resources. When L6 hit we changed this to an every-other-week cycle. Now that the fever of L6 is slowing down for you, we will be pulling back to a monthly cycle.

They'd work for me, but the blog would get more exposure, and I think it's sufficiently useful and interesting to warrant that wider exposure.

Second, Why a monthly cycle? It's not a magical number. We simply want to balance responsive turn-around times on updated resources--especially for non-critical but urgent resource updates--while minimizing the frequency users will be asked to download and re-index their library.

It doesn't need to be monthly, but I think it should be scheduled. Regular, but unscheduled features tend to get forgotten quite quickly. We should have a Logos Patch Tuesday [:)].

Mitchell

I like the sound of this. I'm very glad you realize that the subscription model will only appeal to a subset of users, that's very comforting.

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned: a subscription model that regularly rolls out new features, all of which are occasionally bundled up and sold as an upgrade, would probably keep the quality complaints down. If you build 20 new features and release them all at once, people get hit by bugs all at once which leads to perception of lower quality. If those same features are rolled out to at least a subset of users over the course of a year, the de-bugging process will also be more spread out and thus easier on the users.

John Fugh, Jr.

I need some explanation: Is the "subscription" model just for the software or resources? Having spent a lot of money on resources, I not interested in renting new resources. (BTW, I understand that I will not "have" to rent..both models will be available.) But, I can't seem to figure out if the subscription is for the software so that like proclaim, releases are more frequent.

JT (alabama24)

I need some explanation: Is the "subscription" model just for the software or resources?

Resources.

Lee

Seriously, the devil is in the details of documentation, subscription features and transparency. Done right it will work. Done wrong and it will just increase the ratio of whines to praise.

Absolutely. [Y]

mike

I will not support subscription style. Once subscription is implemented, Logos would not be the same again, I guarantee it.

A Movie can be watched once and be done with. Forever.

A Dictionary cannot. Period.

Not only the subscription will effect the regular classic buying style, pricing will be more competitive (read:expensive)

I say TAG all those book properly FIRST, AND FIX the VISUAL COPY feature.

98% of Logos user don't even know how to use collection rules, and you expect regular and new users to subscribe? They'll be disappointed once they find out how poor the tagging on the books.

Mike Binks

98% of Logos user don't even know how to use collection rules, and you expect regular and new users to subscribe? They'll be disappointed once they find out how poor the tagging on the books.

Mike - I have to agree with you. Tagging, the 'Headline Feature' in Logos is abysmal outside bibles. Even relatively new publications (I am working my way through Tom Wright's 'Christian Origins Series' this year and it is a case in point) . Hardly any of the references are tagged to either the internal reference points, external resources which I own, or to items in the Logos catalogue.

Bob has said that many of his customers buy one base collection and then never upgrade. I am not surprised - if I had come to Logos via the usual route I would not have persevered past the disappointment of the first book or two.

I can understand older publications lagging behind in the update stakes; but relatively new ones! The Paul book in the Origins series was only published last year - for these books there is no excuse.

RyanB

The team is also planning to post more often, and to be clearer about what they're doing, so all their hard word doesn't just silently download in the night.

Bob, I have noticed that since Logos 6 rolled out I have seen a significant number of Faithlife employees posting in the forums much more often. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate that. For me it really goes a long way towards feeling valued by Faithlife.

mike

Bob, I have noticed that since Logos 6 rolled out I have seen a significant number of Faithlife employees posting in the forums much more often. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate that. For me it really goes a long way towards feeling valued by Faithlife.

Where have you been? As far as I can remember, Logos' employees have been a no show throughout December and first week January. They have forever-vacation-policy. (kinda nice, because they work on project with no really deadlines)

Donnie Hale

B. Our Content Innovation department is working on better documentation of our data sets.

Bob,

As always, thanks for being open about where things are at and genuinely interested in customer input.

One issue that has gotten significant discussion in the forums since the L6 release but was mostly lacking in your post was documentation. You do mention data set documentation, but that seemed to be it. I'm surprised that the replies to your post thus far haven't pointed this omission out.

Does Faithlife agree with the general consensus (I think that's a fair summary of the opinions - maybe I'm wrong) that documentation on how to use the program's features is inadequate? If so, what are the plans to improve that? If not, why does Faithlife disagree?

A thought I've had that could improve this is to force internal testing to only be based on the documentation that is going to be released with the program. If the testers can't figure out how to use the program, it's a safe bet that the bell curve majority of customers won't be able to either.

Thanks again,

Donnie

Lee

Thanks for pointing that out, Donnie. It sounded a bit odd to me too.

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/99549/688585.aspx#688585

A. Bob's not going to do a manual. That's like Steve Jobs supporting stylus's (vs the obnoxious bluetooth/microphone).

B. Bob's going to do subscriptions. That's not the question. He asked that one months ago, with exactly the same answers. He's just spreading oil on the waters beforehand.

C. Bob's going to ship headaches more frequently. The problem is that after headache 6.1.2 is finally debugged in 6.1.3, 6.1.3 will have new bugs. So you really can't get 6.1.2 without bugs ... you are going to help Bob debug. Get used to it. Do your Bible study on the side.

D. The tagging issue illustrates the final point: they've got a quality problem. As Francis said.

Matthew C Jones

One issue that has gotten significant discussion in the forums since the L6 release but was mostly lacking in your post was documentation. You do mention data set documentation, but that seemed to be it. I'm surprised that the replies to your post thus far haven't pointed this omission out.

Somebody did point this out. I did.

Our Content Innovation department is working on better documentation of our data sets.
The loud clamour in the forums is not just for data set documentation but for comprehensive user manual covering all aspects of the program.

Donnie Hale

Somebody did point this out. I did.

My apologies. I tried to read the thread carefully - guess I failed.

Donnie

Bryan S.

A. Bob's not going to do a manual. That's like Steve Jobs supporting stylus's (vs the obnoxious bluetooth/microphone).

B. Bob's going to do subscriptions. That's not the question. He asked that one months ago, with exactly the same answers. He's just spreading oil on the waters beforehand.

C. Bob's going to ship headaches more frequently. The problem is that after headache 6.1.2 is finally debugged in 6.1.3, 6.1.3 will have new bugs. So you really can't get 6.1.2 without bugs ... you are going to help Bob debug. Get used to it. Do your Bible study on the side.

D. The tagging issue illustrates the final point: they've got a quality problem. As Francis said.

Denise, you hit the nail on the head and drove it home...[Y]

Bryan S.

Our Content Innovation department is working on better documentation of our data sets.
The loud clamour in the forums is not just for data set documentation but for comprehensive user manual covering all aspects of the program.

Thanks for pointing that out again Super Tramp...although I think Bobs hearing aid is turned down on this one...[:)]

Eli Evans (Logos)

One issue that has gotten significant discussion in the forums since the L6 release but was mostly lacking in your post was documentation. You do mention data set documentation, but that seemed to be it. I'm surprised that the replies to your post thus far haven't pointed this omission out.

Does Faithlife agree with the general consensus (I think that's a fair summary of the opinions - maybe I'm wrong) that documentation on how to use the program's features is inadequate? If so, what are the plans to improve that? If not, why does Faithlife disagree?

A thought I've had that could improve this is to force internal testing to only be based on the documentation that is going to be released with the program. If the testers can't figure out how to use the program, it's a safe bet that the bell curve majority of customers won't be able to either.

Hi, Donnie. Right now, the testers actually write the documentation that's is released with the program, so if they can't figure it out, they have to keep asking around until they do. [:)]

But yes, we certainly hear you that the on-board help documentation doesn't live up to expectations. I'd say it's less inadequate and more B-A-D -- "broken as designed" -- right now, so fixing it is going to mean going back and re-checking some of the philosophical decisions that got us to where we are. We haven't said anything about that yet because we've been going after the lower-hanging fruit (for example, release notes for datasets) and we don't have concrete plans for improvements to help documentation. Yet. I called a brainstorming/problem-solving meeting that's going to happen this afternoon, and if we have anything new or interesting to report, or anything to ask for feedback on, we'll make sure to post.

Also: We've shared this thread around internally, and we're eliciting ideas from lots of different quarters for how to do better in order to serve you better.

Also: One advantage of moving to more rapid design-develop-deploy cycles is that we are able to make baby steps in the right direction, or change course quicker if we're not moving.

Matthew C Jones

We haven't said anything about that yet because we've been going after the lower-hanging fruit (for example, release notes for datasets) and we don't have concrete plans for improvements to help documentation. Yet. I called a brainstorming/problem-solving meeting that's going to happen this afternoon, and if we have anything new or interesting to report, or anything to ask for feedback on, we'll make sure to post.

I appreciate the increased presence and responsiveness of Faithlife employees on the forums. It gives us hope.

Ted Weis

I like the sound of all of it (including shorter release cycles) except for the point about subscriptions. The only thing I'd be interested in by subscription would be up to date journals

Given the fact that journals already require subscriptions, I could envision looking at a long list of them, ticking the boxes of those I want in Logos, and in turn getting a custom subscription service. While I wouldn't own the journal, I would have access to the latest ones.

Donnie Hale

But yes, we certainly hear you that the on-board help documentation doesn't live up to expectations.

Thank you very much for replying directly to this question. I think we're all looking forward to details on your plans and the results, slow (to us) as they may seem to be in coming.

Thanks again,

Donnie

Lee

I don't like the idea of Subscriptions: I don't want to rent resources. I like to pick what i need and then get the best use out of it.

Note: After the last upgrade to L6 Standard & Reformed Platinum which is on the payment plan. I am very happy with the new L6 added resources, and the new Features

I want to be careful about other items.

Kevin A Lewis

I don't like the idea of Subscriptions: I don't want to rent resources.

I agree - I don't want to rent (at least normally)

But do bear in mind that "subscription" does not implicitly mean "renting" - the journal example is particularly apposite in this regard - an annual subscription allows for the "purchase" of the years issues. (at least in the physical publication world). I know this may often be different in the world of online electronic publications - the point I'm making is it doesn't have to mean that.

Shalom.

Faithlife teams secretly works on new product with previously un-imagined features and data sets we invented. We quietly test ideas on each other and some customers, and come up with a plan and release date. The release date is chosen long in advance and (now that we're big and complicated) becomes set in stone, because hundreds of people, data, licenses, contracts, vacation schedules, baby births, and big-budget expenses are all coordinated against it.

The team works super-hard, has to cut some favored features and content, and sometimes has to choose to ship something incomplete for future delivery (new Atlas maps) or to cut the feature, because the date is set. The team also has to build many features in an environment with limited user-feedback. Sometimes the data set is being shaped by the act of creating it (cultural concepts) -- some of these things are so new we don't know what they'll be like and how they'll work when we're done.

Since there has been a snowballing effect ever since Logos 4, could it be also that the "dream" gets over-ambitious and Faithlife takes on too much at a time? It certainly looks that way to me. Making promises that are not quite kept would seem to align well with this happening. Having a great vision is good but delivering on one's promises is what gives a party "a good name".

2(b). We hear that "I never by point-zero releases -- they're always buggy" and "it's too soon -- I can't afford an upgrade yet" and others are just not paying attention / are in no hurry. (75% of regular users.)

[update with fixes and improvements ships]

3. Another 25% start upgrading while the first 25% send in 'bug reports'. Many of these are good, useful, and 'real bugs'. Some are clearly our fault (bad coding, rushed release, inattentive editing). Others are good, useful, 'real bugs', and the fault of the latest Microsoft / Apple OS release. (Too often our release coincides with one of theirs. Probably because we all like the same pre-Christmas release dates.) Others are good, useful feedback that isn't really a bug, it's a misunderstanding of scope or intention. This feedback helps us improve descriptions, documentation, or even change a feature or data set.

[update with fixes and improvements ships]

4. Strategic-disagreement ensues. :-) "Why would you release something so buggy / unfinished / poorly-document / unexplained / not-what-I-expected-at-this-moment." [tiny fix ships] "You should have waited a year till it was right." [tiny fix ships] "I don't want an upgrade every two years, I want an upgrade every three / four / ten years." [tiny fix ships]

There may be a naturally occurring and across-the-board dynamic of this kind with all new products, but I am sure that this happens more with products that are not as well finished and less with those that are. And even if that were not the case, the real question is not whether this is an unavoidable occurrence but whether in the case of Logos, it is exacerbated by the sacrifice of quality control and the accepted standard of what is a market-ready product.

How can it be said that 1) having read the feedback about quality of data and code in recent threads, we are right (your words) and then go on to say 2) it's unavoidable and cyclical?

Everything is getting more complicated. Sometimes a bug is a bug. Sometimes a bug is a financial or logistical constraint that forces a difficult choice.

Agreed and understandable to a certain degree. The boundary line is when complication is compounded by taking in more than can be reasonably and responsibly well handled.

We couldn't make any thematic maps until the background was right, and that took a lot longer than anticipated (lots of reasons), and we realized we wouldn't have all the maps done by the release date. Question: Do we ship what we have, knowing we can ship new maps at a rate of several a week (roughly) until they're all delivered, or do we pull the feature and just not have a new Atlas feature in Logos 6? It would actually take more work to reverse the new Atlas, change the marketing, etc., but we probably would sell just as many upgrades / earn as much revenue without this one feature.... We decided to ship it and deliver more maps after release. (That's ongoing.) Is this a bug, or a feature we're delivering over time that you're glad to have when it's ready? Or should we have stopped the whole process and delayed launch by a few months to let Atlas catch up?

I feel presented with a false dichotomy. If this was a question that pertained to only one feature of Logos, it would be worth considering. But when the datasets are all given without adequate documentation, tags are unusable, visual copy is all over the map, atlas is not ready (to mention just a few) one starts to wonder when the question of poor planning comes into play. I question neither intentions nor hard work. I am persuaded that everybody worked very hard especially as the release date approached and are enthused about the potential of the features they work on. But this does not negate the possibility that the planning was poor and again, most likely that you took on too much at a time and found out that you could not deliver. I know you want to "wow" us. And there certainly is a "wow" factor in Logos, but flies have a way of taking away from the otherwise delightful fragrance of perfume.

We have 45,000 books; LCV is on dozens, and Cultural Concepts is on about two dozen of four-dozen key books we have identified. (Though it could arguably be useful on even more.) Question: Is it a bug that Cultural Concepts aren't applied to Pliny's Letters yet?

Yes, it's a bug (irony alert). After all, this is what we really care about right, Cultural Concepts in Max Lucado! The better question is the fact that ever since the topic browser of Libronix 3 was taken out and the LCV approach was promised in L4, we have kept running after it. There have been good advances and certainly the topic guide, factbook and datasets have made great advances there well beyond what the topic browser could do. But it has taken that many years and 3 major upgrades to only get now to the point where we can see some of this promise delivered. In the meantime, we have had to make do.

Returning to Pliny's letters, it is clear that the ever-expanding Logos library constitutes a great challenge when it comes to tagging. The allusion to Max Lucado had a point: set from the start the parameters of application of a dataset and make it part of the advertisement. Don't say something that may make anyone think that all resources should be expected to be tagged with cultural concepts. Do say: cultural concepts in Bibles. In the future, we hope to expand to (a reasonable, reachable goal defined by a set family of resources, for instance those included in the ancient literature dataset). Instead of coming up with a new dataset, market the expansion of the dataset! (Logos 7 = cultural concepts in all ancient lit. dataset resources). Pliny would then find its place there, whether it has no place at all for the time being (nor Max Lucado, even if there may be customers who think he should). But more importantly, customers expectations are set right. We will be happy when we get promised cultural concepts for all Bibles and get exactly that. Why? Because we would not have had that before, would not have been promised more and therefore had NO EXPECTATION. We'd be free to just enjoy our gain. We may "suggest" expanding but would not complain that it is not elsewhere. On the other hand, grand and insufficiently qualified promises do lead to disappointment and complaining. And certainly "not working" or not documented does not work either.

We can't make everyone happy

Again true enough, but not a catch-all excuse either. To the extent that you address specific niches in your marketing (e.g., Academics), you have to cater to their needs accordingly. In this precise case, it means tools of "professional" grade.

We're not going to retreat to three or four year release cycles.

I would not pretend to know what length of cycle is best. I am good with it if, as you say, it is priced accordingly. BUT each version should deliver on its promises, not be another step toward reaching goals that ever remain ahead of us. Make the goals reasonable and deliver them for each cycle in order to fulfill what was promised to those who purchased that version.

More communication. (It seems like that's the solution to most problems...)

Yes, with qualification. It helps, but it does not supply for unusable tags. Also, while I appreciate the conversations and communications, I believe that communication has become too complicated as a reflection of the problems discussed above (taking on too much, lack of delivery at release, too many bugs, incomplete data, etc). As a concrete example, release notes are a good piece of communication, but at the same time, there are so many bugs fixed in each release that it is a drag to keep track of where things are at. Too much going on results in information overload. And there is too much going on. And in the end, it would be a pity for employees to be spending all this time discussing problems instead of having them fixed in the first place or now.

I would suggest also that the limits of the forums be taken into consideration as well. The forum is a mess. One can easily miss important pieces of communication. Perhaps blogs would be better for that or a newsletter? Also, as has been pointed out before, bug reports fall between the cracks on the forums.

Concerning subscriptions and rentals

This can serve the needs of some (for instance, students using textbooks). If I may venture to caution a bit there: what is becoming standard is not necessarily all good. The media explosion is out of control and its implications are rarely worked out before new formats, new ways of doing things, new gadgets pass into broad use. Don't be in a hurry to conform "to the industry" if your ultimate goals are not the same as and more discerning than that of "the industry" (which is profitability).

I don't have anything against these proposals intrinsically as long as indeed, they don't displace good old straightforward ownership. Yet as I am reading of more proposals on your part, even bundled together with discussion of the rampant problems that are already here, I can't help but think SLOW DOWN. Same reaction when you asked what features we want in Logos 7.

I don't think I can summarize all of these concerns any better than this exhortation: slow down. That's my two cents, for what they're worth.

I'd say it's less inadequate and more B-A-D -- "broken as designed" -- right now, so fixing it is going to mean going back and re-checking some of the philosophical decisions that got us to where we are.

We've shared this thread around internally, and we're eliciting ideas from lots of different quarters for how to do better in order to serve you better.

[Y][Y][Y]

Charlene

Francis, what you said above in your response to Bob's post was excellent! I agree.

Bob Pritchett

could it be also that the "dream" gets over-ambitious and Faithlife takes on too much at a time?

You are correct. We are over-ambitious, and I believe we deliver more value in each release than we really need to. I think Logos 6 would have been a great upgrade without several of the new features. But because we want to deliver more cool stuff, and are reluctant to pull things that are almost done and have great promise, it sometimes takes time for things to stabilize.

But maybe that balance of new stuff / stability is slightly off right now -- so we're adjusting it.

set from the start the parameters of application of a dataset and make it part of the advertisement

That's a good idea, and we're going to work on doing just that.

'Tagging' seems to be a big complaint, which I understand to be missing links to other books, to bibliographic references, etc. (Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.)

This is probably the ultimate example of where our large library leads to issues: the books in our base packages sell in the many thousands of units. Most other books on pre-pub sell 100-800 units. You'd be amazed how many sell just a hundred or so.

I was recently emailed by a user who is upset that a set of books lack links to inline bibliographic references. e.g. "(Smith, 1984, p. 37) or -- worse -- (Jones, 1993)". These are indirect references to the bibliography that follows -- you have to find the next bibliography (at the end of the chapter, if there, or at the end of the book) and then find the reference to Smith's book from 1984, and then make that inline reference a link on the p. 37, or to the whole book.

This is more difficult to automatically tag than things like "John 3:16", and takes a lot of back-and-forth look-up even for human taggers. (And it's error-prone and a bit fragile.)

We have never intentionally supported this reference style. We only supported putting biblio identifiers on whole-book references back in 2009. (Previously we only linked to books we already had, with hard links, or to canonical reference schemes.) While we may have in some cases tagged these short references, they weren't planned or budgeted for -- they were on a list for 'future support' as our biblio data type resolution improved (depending, as it does, on a server-based dynamic lookup of bibliographic information).

The user emailing me has a collection of books that are very important to him, and which he's reading carefully. The lack of links on these short references is frustrating him, and 'failing to deliver on the promise of the Logos system.' But the books in question were produced in 2007 -- before we tagged any bibliographic links -- sold few units (in other words, he may likely be the ONLY user in the world reading them right now), and have a large number of never-tagged short-references. (Which means it's a huge amount of work, raising the cost, and which also means that even once we DO link them, most of them won't resolve to a book we have in the system.)

And that's a complaint about one resource in a library of 45,000, 20,000 of which (?) were produced more than 5 years ago -- in Libronix days, when we promised dramatically different functionality and supported fewer things.

I'm not trying to make an excuse; I apologized to the user for our deficiency, and asked the content production team to move this book (and the related volumes) higher in the re-cycle queue.

But I am trying to provide an explanation.

Maybe this will help: The default prioritization of resources comes from sales count. So every new tagging methodology is applied to (relevant) resources in Starter, then Bronze, then Silver, Gold, etc. Books in base packages are available to the most users, and we start almost every data project by doing the books in the base packages first.

Then we do the most expensive titles for which the new tagging would add real value. (You'll see Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary get attention before more obscure titles, for example.)

The 're-cycle' queue for maintenance is affected by number of requests, typo reports, and a combination of sales/price/subjective opinion on the value of the improvements.

We'll try to make these lists most explicit and public in the future.

To the extent that you address specific niches in your marketing (e.g., Academics), you have to cater to their needs accordingly. In this precise case, it means tools of "professional" grade.

I have a professional grade hammer, and it is perfect. It is free of bugs and defects and performs its job flawlessly.

I have a professional grade laptop, and it is far from perfect. You can imagine the frequent issues, performance problems, and petty frustrations.

My laptop does a lot more than my hammer, though, and I use it much more often, and appreciate it a lot more. I am confident that if they started eliminating functions and scaling back their ambition to do too much that they could get a laptop to the same standard of professional quality as my hammer.

In fact, I have a laptop computer that meets the same quality bar as my hammer. It's a smaller computer that does less, but does it quickly and reliably. It never drops a wifi connection, never fails to boot, never crashes, never needs to download or index... doesn't need to be charged each day and takes little space -- it's perfect! It's a calculator!

I just don't use it often...

Okay, so I got carried away with my example. :-)

It has always been a balancing act, and I agree that right now we need to scale back what we've been doing and give more attention to thoroughness, catch-up, and quality control. But I'm also explaining why we aren't going to swing all the way back the other way, pursuing perfection at the price of serving only a tiny (happy) audience. There are other calculator-like products that already serve that niche; we're the laptop.

could it be also that the "dream" gets over-ambitious and Faithlife takes on too much at a time?

You are correct. We are over-ambitious, and I believe we deliver more value in each release than we really need to. I think Logos 6 would have been a great upgrade without several of the new features. But because we want to deliver more cool stuff, and are reluctant to pull things that are almost done and have great promise, it sometimes takes time for things to stabilize.

The point is not to pull things out that are almost done because that would be "delivering too much"; the point is to not start on too many big new things at once. Even pulling things out that aren't done yet can introduce instability.

It sounds like you are getting the message. Ratchet up your emphasis on stability and take a longer time to do the new stuff right. Place a slightly higher emphasis on going back to add tagging in old resources to take advantage of all the new datasets (but no need to go overboard on that).

The point is not to pull things out that are almost done because that would be "delivering too much"; the point is to not start on too many big new things at once. Even pulling things out that aren't done yet can introduce instability.

Part of the problem is that when a project is started that requires some kind of tagging, the scope of the problem can be very amorphous. I am sure when Logos began the versification mapping project, for example, no one would have correctly estimated the number of maps needed. And I am still finding mappings they handle poorly (see Esther 1 in the NJB) because they had neither the JB or NJB in hand when they designed the mapping. The trick is to deliver discreet portions with a reasonable timeline for completion (deuteron-canonicals to Bible Facts was not reasonable), the lack of Jewish/Catholic/Anglican terms in the LCV is not reasonable.

The other part of the problem is getting the right people in the room for initial design e.g. the sermon section was designed based on a very erroneous assumption that generally sermons are on one defined passage. This holds up only for churches not using a lectionary - for them the standard sermon covers multiple passages and is best described (in machine extraction terms) by liturgical date. My nagging on this point has finally paid off.

As customers we need to realize that the tools of our dreams BSL, Case Frames etc. need to be viewed as a dialogue of small steps where Faithlife proposes, users oppose (okay, point out design flaws and usability issues), Faithlife revises and adds a bit, users complain ... The basic issue is that seminaries, their professors and the general user has not rethought exegesis in light of modern technology. I've been thinking a lot about "revisioning" an interlinear recently ... if I'm found dead blame George[;)] ... and have been amazed at how little of modern translation tool thinking and formatting has been brought to the issue. Am I sounding like Denise here? [8-|]

Edwin Bowden

Maybe this will help: The default prioritization of resources comes from sales count. So every new tagging methodology is applied to (relevant) resources in Starter, then Bronze, then Silver, Gold, etc. Books in base packages are available to the most users, and we start almost every data project by doing the books in the base packages first.

Then we do the most expensive titles for which the new tagging would add real value. (You'll see Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary get attention before more obscure titles, for example.)

Bob,

I assume that is the explanation for why Hastings 5 vol. Dictionary of the Bible has not made any progress in CP since it was announced as a part of the Diamond/Portfolio/Collectors base pkgs.

That set has been sitting in CP for many years. When I saw that it would be included in the 3 largest (most expensive) pkgs users could purchase, I assumed those additional users would be added to the existing bids to move it from CP to pre-pub, Unlike regular CP titles, those customers have already PAID FOR the set that is still sitting in CP.

This is not the first time that Logos sold pkgs with products that were not delivered for a long time after they were paid for.

I love Logos. As a large, fast growing organization, stumbles sometimes happen along the way.

Keep striving for excellence.

I assume that is the explanation for why Hastings 5 vol. Dictionary of the Bible has not made any progress in CP since it was announced as a part of the Diamond/Portfolio/Collectors base pkgs.

In general when a package is sold with a product included which is also in CP, the product is released within a month or two of the package's release - released first to those who own the package causing great confusion on the forum for those who've bid on the CP. Then it is released to those who have CP or Pre-pub rights to it. The only cases I know that did not fit this pattern were non-English works that ran into unexpected production problems. This seems to be independent of the LCV coding Bob is speaking of as they have a history of releasing first without the LCV coding and rereleasing an updated version when the LCV coding is complete.

EastTN

'Tagging' seems to be a big complaint, which I understand to be missing links to other books, to bibliographic references, etc. (Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.)

This is probably the ultimate example of where our large library leads to issues: the books in our base packages sell in the many thousands of units. Most other books on pre-pub sell 100-800 units. You'd be amazed how many sell just a hundred or so.

I was recently emailed by a user who is upset that a set of books lack links to inline bibliographic references. e.g. "(Smith, 1984, p. 37) or -- worse -- (Jones, 1993)". These are indirect references to the bibliography that follows -- you have to find the next bibliography (at the end of the chapter, if there, or at the end of the book) and then find the reference to Smith's book from 1984, and then make that inline reference a link on the p. 37, or to the whole book.

This is more difficult to automatically tag than things like "John 3:16", and takes a lot of back-and-forth look-up even for human taggers. (And it's error-prone and a bit fragile.)

I totally get the problem with adding links to older resources that have a relatively limited customer base. I wonder, though, if there might be a way to support user-submitted links for resources like that. They might not be as reliable as curated links, but by tapping the community it could improve those resources for everyone while at the same time giving users an outlet for their frustration.

I totally get the problem with adding links to older resources that have a relatively limited customer base. I wonder, though, if there might be a way to support user-submitted links for resources like that. They might not be as reliable as curated links, but by tapping the community it could improve those resources for everyone while at the same time giving users an outlet for their frustration.

I have long thought this could be a partial solution to the problem of missing links.

[Y]

Michael G Parry-Thomas

Deleted

Kent

I think I need to find Another bible software library With data I can trust ,

Good luck

[deleted by poster]

Michael G Parry-Thomas

Deleted

I'm very sorry. I was teasing, but you're right, this was nothing to tease about. And I don't know you so I can't get away with communicating in a teasing fashion the way I can with other whom I've joked around with on these forums for years. I apologize.

Kent

I need bible software i can trust

I think you can trust all of them to have their own problems. If it is perfection your looking for this side of heaven you will be disappointed. For me it is more about the resources I can find in Logos and its search capabilities. All the other bells and whistles do me very little good. I am very happy with the product as it fulfills my needs well. Others have different opinions likely relating to their different uses. That being said, those problems which keep you up at night should be reported but we all need to do so with love and respect.

This is what is giving logos forum problams when you get a Reply like this. the forum is not a good place to be ,do you work For logos l have spent over £15,000 I need bible software i can trust

Michael, what you need to distinguish is what you mean by "trust" in different contexts. For example on the ancient texts, morphology, syntax diagrams etc. you can trust Logos to the same degree you would trust any library resource. As for the searches, they are generally reliable if you understand exactly what you are requesting. Because we often want selections that "can't" be done precisely e.g. how frequently is God's word mentioned as the instrument by which God created the universe, we have to build searches that approach it from multiple approaches and combine or sift as necessary. The old alternative, still available, is to look at all references of creation and all references to word ... all likely synonyms and manually compile a list is not reliable. Where Logos is not reliable is, for example, a topic search on the Agnus Dei chant across all your resources ... it is not yet in the LCV so a phrase search on "Agnus Dei" OR "Lamb of God" is as good as you can get. Until fairly recently the deuterocanonicals were not fully tagged and would be missing from the old Bible Facts. Another example is the new Sermon Section which has few liturgical sermons or the Case Senses which haven't been applied to the Old Testament. When I say I don't trust Logos coding for BSL or Discourse Analysis or Case Frames, I don't trust it in the same way a scholar takes all preceding work as provisional ... and resources using less stable theoretical bases, I trust less than those that have 3-5 centuries of stable theory.

JAL

...from reading what people are saying on the forum..., I think I need to find Another bible software library With data I can trust

This thread in particular provides a context where it is true that you will find reports of errors and complaints of hoped for improvement. Please do note also that many of these come from individuals who are using Faithlife products everyday to good and trustworthy ends.

I have expressed my own concern in response to what I have read, and will continue too. I trust that the staff and owners of Faithlife are able to weigh these concerns and have been encouraged by the responses.

I have recently taken note that there has been little complaining from students and faculty of schools and colleges which provide a Faithlife library and presumably require that it be used.

I am not attempting to contradict you. I have expended a similar amount to acquire a library of resources and I trust them though it is likely my needs are substantively different than yours.

Dave Hooton

A proposal: Treat the forums as a kind of bug database (I remember RAID from Microsoft but I don't know what sort of system you use internally), and track bug reports on it as aggressively as you would an internal bug database.

1. Any thread that contains a bug report gets marked as such somehow (add a new forum feature for this if necessary). The user who posts the thread, or an MVP or Faithlife employee could have access to set that flag, so that we can make sure that the time we post a bug report that it won't fall through the cracks.

Rosie and I have previously made proposals for better bug tracking and my suggestion was to make bug reporting easier and consistent by having a format that forces essential information to be given in the first post (Logos/Verbum 6.1, Mac/Windows, Crash/Bug/Enquiry, upload Logs, attach a screenshot) but is tailored to the forum e.g. Logos 5 forums force the user to acknowledge that the bug is for Logos/Verbum 5. General forum makes it clear this isn't the place for bug reports!

I think it is essential for these reasons:-

reduces wear/tear and time for Faithlife/MVP's extracting essential information, providing links for logs, suggesting the thread be moved to another forum, etc.
Key words can be easily found with forum search e.g. I can find all my bug reports. Faithlife can find reports to which they haven't responded
directs users as to what is needed (via links) and they will get a faster turnaround

Dave Hooton

Bob

A shorter cycle means new ideas get feedback faster. A shorter cycle means bad ideas don't waste as many resources before being abandoned.

This is fine, but I'm an Owner and not a renter.

A few examples of bad ideas:-

Bible Event Navigator was flawed from the start (gave far too many hits in Media search) and now that the flaws have been removed it is fairly useless!

Biblical People Diagrams wasn't needed in Factbook as FSBI can supply plenty of stick figures, but it doesn't offer anything useful in Media search.

Ask the Author - if the idea wasn't totally bad, the implementation is awful with too many deceased author messages. Please withdraw.

Library functions:-

Most Used - meaningless, never offered anything significant. Please withdraw.
Read - it was thrown into a v. 6.0x beta and it is useless/inaccurate. Please withdraw.

OTOH Labels is a good Logos 6 idea but the implementation is incomplete/flawed. Too much left for users to report/comment/complain about in the forums. I'm agnostic to Visual Copy but the same comment applies.

So the good news is, we're in the maintenance phase now. We've had multiple meetings and internal email threads, and performance, bug fixes, interface improvements, documentation, and resource maintenance (re-tagging with new data types, label markup, data sets, etc.) are top priorities.

Great! Fix Labels and Visual Copy and those niggling/annoying/persistent bugs you've ignored for years. Communicate your ideas/conclusions in the relevant threads so we know they haven't been ignored.

So, Dave, I guess I shouldn't 'Ask the Author' on Menetho?

(I'm a little tired. I just spent the last hour trying to figure out how to force L6 not to grab all the memory I have. As usual when you do a re-load a layout, it doesn't give up any memory; just runs it up to 96% (8g) and then heads for the diskdrive, and all my other guys have to start sweating it out.)

Rayner

Library functions:-

Most Used - meaningless, never offered anything significant. Please withdraw.

Read - it was thrown into a v. 6.0x beta and it is useless/inaccurate. Please withdraw.

If the "Read" functionality concerns the little circular disk symbol and percentage that appears to say how much of a book one has read, I think it's useful, just in terms of giving me a rough approximation of how much of a book I have glanced at. I realise the program cannot know what we've read, but I'd like to keep this functionality around for a little longer to gauge its usefulness.

Don Awalt

I'll throw my thoughts in, although these points may have been made since there are so many comments:

1. I am clearly in the camp that gets very frustrated because of the perceived number of bugs, which you addressed in your post Bob. Thanks for that, acknowledgment is the first step although I cast my vote to slow down a bit and produce better quality code.

2. I was a software engineer for over 30 years, and to me Logos/Verbum releases seem to have way too many regression bugs. I have never seen anything about automated test plans/regression tests/building the verification code first, all the software testing concepts that have come mainstream in the last 10-15 years. If you think it costs more to write software this way, you are mistaken. Do you use any kind of regression/build the tests into the software first? There are times I can't believe the bugs that got out, it is CLEAR no one tested that area, or built in the software so that the bug would have been apparent before shipment.

3. Like others here I feel the bugs to be addressed are hit and miss. If you are going to move in a way that users see "lots" of bugs in their perception (probably sometimes true, sometimes not), then transparency would dictate bringing us in on the bug reporting/priority issues. Others here have suggested ways to do this. I have my pet bugs that I have reported that I have not been able to even get a response or simple acknowledgement from a Faithlife employee on, for a very long time. It would be much preferable to at least know a bug is on the list, moving up, but not addressed yet. I don't know if bugs I have reported are going to be fixed or not, and the lack of communication and in my perception lack of attention is extremely aggravating.

Don, I bumped a number of bugs without responses last night to help make them visible again and geta sense of the scope of the problem. If I missed any of yours bump them.