After waiting patiently after the Master Journal Bundle 2.1+ came out - not a lot has happened.
Where was the frequent release programme we were expecting.
Shalom
We posted the Master Journal Bundle 4.1 and a few other journals bundles earlier in the year. We're waiting for these to get sufficient funding to put them into production.
My question above Mark's is, if they do not get the sufficient funding does that mean there are no more journal updates? Are we done at 4.1, and there will never be a 5.1 because there is not sufficient funding?
I'm aware of BW shutting down, and FL has to have a business model that does not jeopardize that future.
Are there any other solutions except for us to create some buzz here in hopes to generate the interest for sufficient funding?
Anyone have any ideas?
My query was why the lack of interest? Can we as a community explain to FL why there is so lil' interest now in what this thread has cried out for?
We need to keep this thread alive and for FL to help us together to find a suitable solution going forward. I am encouraged by the recent activity as it seemed this thread went dormant for a while.
I do feel the same way about many resources no longer coming along and either are stuck in pre-pub or never make it to that stage as one is relegated to posting in the suggestions to get some attention.
Let's all consider how to proceed properly and not sensationally and end up like BW. BW did not evolve its business model and thus was left obsolete. If people are going elsewhere for journals, that means people will end up going elsewhere for other items and soon FL will be on the chopping block like BW or go in a different direction and be forced to abandon journals because somewhere else did it better. Is there an alternative to turn the tide?
If it takes this long to get enough orders, then the pre-pubs should be launched 9-12 months earlier to ensure there isn’t an unnecessary delay.
Yes! [Y]
Your guess was correct ... affordability. How many folks are up for these prepub prices (below)? Personally, I'd break it down by older vs recent.
I agree that price is a huge factor if you are purchasing these without having previous sets but if you have purchased previous sets it is more reasonable.
I agree with you Denise, breaking them down by older vs recent might help.
I also would agree with this.
Ben, are you the head of the Journal TEAM working on this project? Or is it Phil? Or someone else?
Hopefully Ben sees Mark's question.
Adding to my earlier point, not only is the aggregated pricing unaffordable for new participants. It's a dis-incentive to upgraders (small to large).
I checked what they're offering me to upgrade. Same as a first-timer ... about 25% discount for product less desired (in an upgrade). And unaffordable as well.
But, as in a poker game, my academic journal prepub is $25. Stand pat.
Yes, cost, cost, cost. I checked my library and I have 789 resources with type:journal, mostly from the TJL days and my cost for the 4.1 Master Collection is $968.38. There's absolutely no way I can justify spending that kind of money on what they're offering. I, along with most who've been to Bible College or Seminary, have alumni access to ATLAS and that provides a much wider and more up to date selection than what Logos has available. Maybe Faithlife needs to be thinking subscription for journals in the hopes that those without ATLAS will at least pony up some money.
The whole journal mess - long pre-pub times, little communication, unclear commitment to the journals, no regular release schedule, tons of journals very few people need or want that jack up the price - point to a decided lack of concern or understanding about journals with Faithlife.
The evidence is that it will soon be 2019 and the 2017 journals are buried in pre-pub.
Galaxie made a successful business out of journals, so why can't FL? They produced annual updates and sold them. No pre-pubs, not fooling around making excuses, they just did it. (Still do.)
What is needed is this: an annual update for each journal bundle, available every year, produced in a timely fashion, and with that year's journals only. No pre-pubs, just produce it and offer it for sale. Have the journal bundles no longer increment. Make them a separate purchase and let people buy them if they want the older journals, plus any annual updates to bring them up-to-date.
Why can't this be done by company hundreds of times bigger than Galaxie?
What is going on now is nothing but frustrating to those of us who want new journals in a timely fashion. The current model clearly is not working to this end.
It was my understanding that the following are being offered:
MJB 4.1 $1799.99
TJB 4.1 $1099.99
AJB 4.1 $699.99
TJL 4.1 $569.99
These prices would scare anyone away.
But for those of us who have Journals previously, these prices look much nicer. For myself, MJB 4.1 would be less than $100.
But what is the offering for those who have no journals to begin with? Am I correct to think that past journals are available individually or in smaller bundles so as to entice people to purchase past journals?
And for those who want current Journals, there needs to be more than an upgrade in place....there needs to be current yearly Journals to purchase separately, apart from past Journals (or something like that).
FL, when you talk about funding, what are you really talking about? Can you not make available everything you have now currently, in packages that are appealing for people to purchase? And if so, I really do not understand what kind of funding is needed to take care of current year Journals. Surely there is a market for it.
As you know, in the past, there was a listing of Journals marketed to an evangelical audience sold by FL, but it came from Galaxie, and it sold each year for $50. Can you bring back such offerings? Perhaps you can have a listing of Journals marketed to a Catholic audience and sell it yearly for $50..another package to another audience, and sell it for a certain amount yearly.
I am only trying to brainstorm here because it appears to me that the lack of communication makes it clear that this project is not a priority.
In the early years of FL, one of the most incredible things was the open communication between FL and customers. We heard from Bob very often. I realize that as a company grows, that is going to change. But I think that what made FL so successful is that the business grew on the good relations FL had with its customers. Now you have an incredible product. But the communication seems to be much more muted.
There are models in business that speak about this...
Are you listening?
What is needed is this: an annual update for each journal bundle, available every year, produced in a timely fashion....
Indeed. The nature of having journals and doing academic work is that you MUST have a consistent stream of new things coming in. Otherwise, we'll have to check what's in Logos and then go to the library and check what's there, too. (We have to do that anyway since many of the standard academic journals are not available got Logos; but having current volumes would mitigate against that problem.) Without that constant stream, having journals at all in Logos makes a lot less sense.
Are ALL those various packages waiting for sufficient funding to move into production? or just a few such as GTJ?
All.
Is there still a team working on this project as of October 22, 2018? What has happened since the last report that a team was working on this?
Occasionally we promote them to try to drive more funding. But other than that, no one is actively working on them. We're waiting for sufficient funding levels to be reached.
So why are we told we must wait until there is 'funding' - this may make financial sense - but surely not sound commercial and promotional sense. These would be an investment in the health of the idea of Journals within Logos. These constant delays are just putting more and more people off and they are going elsewhere - or even resorting to the paper alternative.
We shipped the last round of journals significantly below 100% funding, and I don't think we've recouped our costs since then.
Regularly shipping journals without sufficient funding isn't sustainable.
I agree with Kevin... lets have: you buy the back catalogue in a bundle and at $5 a month subscription it always stays up to date with new journals and you own them! That actually approximates close to the cost offered anyway. Logos gains reliable revenue and we gain reliable journals! WIN-WIN Just like a magazine subscription in paper would be.
We've discussed a model like this, but we'd have to build the commerce support for it. We don't have a way to do this presently. Would you rather have this, or cross-storefront search?
Phil,
This is simply a disaster. Please rethink how you are handling journals. FL's addiction to prepub is killing this product which just doesn't fit that sort of funding model. A book, lexicon, commentary? Yes. Journals which must be published in a timely way? Pre-pub doesn't work.
Why could Galaxie manage to stay in business without prepub and FL with all it's size and resources can't find a way to make annual updates work? I don't buy it.
Agreed, but that didn't seem to be the case for Galaxie. What's the difference?
We don't have a way to do this presently. Would you rather have this, or cross-storefront search?
Both. But if I wanted just one, it would be journals.
I'm going to say it again...only about 5% of the Journals that FL has provided thus far ever show up in my Logos links (or my hard copy bibliographies, for that matter). There are about 15-25 journals that turn up regularly in my bibliographies and links that have literally thousands of references in Logos, but they remain dead links. WHY?????????
We ran into some challenges with our biblio links project, but we hope to get it moving again next year. I'm sorry it's taken much longer than we anticipated.
I think I've already listed some of them in this thread: VT, NT, HTR, CBQ, HUCA, just to reference a few...these are extremely common journals with TONS of relevant information that is locked out of the Logos user experience. THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. Until these are part of the Logos stable, FL is just playing games.
I agreed it would be wonderful to have these journals. We've so far been unable to license them for a variety of reasons. Many are wrapped up in exclusive agreements and unavailable for others to offer.
If it takes this long to get enough orders, then the pre-pubs should be launched 9-12 months earlier to ensure there isn’t an unnecessary delay. Yes!
Yes!
We posted them right after we shipped the previous ones. I'm not sure how could have posted them any sooner.
You could post them two years in advance anticipating the contents to change only by the number of volumes you expect (from previous years) to be added. I'm not sure you need that much time, but you could get it, couldn't you? Is it that dynamic?
I agree with Kevin... lets have: you buy the back catalogue in a bundle and at $5 a month subscription it always stays up to date with new journals and you own them! That actually approximates close to the cost offered anyway. Logos gains reliable revenue and we gain reliable journals! WIN-WIN Just like a magazine subscription in paper would be. We've discussed a model like this, but we'd have to build the commerce support for it. We don't have a way to do this presently. Would you rather have this, or cross-storefront search?
Instead of building additional commerce support for these, why not offer the following:
1. Switch the journal bundles to purchase to own to offering them by the year (like you did with Galaxie TJL in the past). Customers can purchase to own any of the previous years they want, or purchase a bundle that offers all the back years in a super bundle (like you did with Galaxie TJL 1-15). Offer the ability to purchase to own each year's new journal bundle when they're released by FL.
2. To expedite the funding/releasing of new journal bundles by FL, offer an all-access subscription service to all back issues of the journals, as well as any new issues that are offered. I know for us who invested in the back issues we've be paying for subscription access to the back issues as well, but at least it would give us access to all new journal issues. Those who subscribe to Galaxie now (like I do) are already double-paying since I own the back issues in Logos and are paying Galaxie to subscribe for access to the latest editions.
Those who want a cost-effective way to get access to all back issues or access to all the future issues can jump on the subscription bandwagon and help support this project. FL can later release each year's journal bundles as a purchase option shortly after they're offered to subscribers (similar to how Faithlife Connect users get subscription access to new Logos features, or customers can direct purchase upgrade to the new version of Logos when released) for those who don't want to jump on the subscription bandwagon.
3. I would recommend FL focus on the Galaxie journals first. While they weren't "perfect" inside Logos and didn't have all the fancy tagging, as of now, I'd take them as-is if FL can get them. If FL wanted to offer the best of both worlds, then license the journals from Galaxie, go in and offer the additional tagging, and charge a slightly higher price for the annual subscription and/or annual purchase bundle prices to offer them in Logos (since they were $50 when Galaxie offered them, I'd pay at least $75+, possibly even higher, to have these in Logos) with the additional tagging). The Galaxie journals are the ones I (and many people) use the most, so I'd start there and forget the rest for a little bit. Judge how well the strategy goes with getting customers on board with these journal offerings, and if it's a success, expand to offering what was in the Master Bundle and other journal offerings.
I'm the Vice President for our Bible Study Products strategic business unit.
I'm responsible (with my teams) for business and product strategy and management for the following lines of business:
General
Denominations/Traditions
Languages
and the following applications:
and the following web stores:
Ben works for me and directs our products department and oversees the individuals who manage most of these lines of business, the product managers for our apps, and the team that managing our Community Pricing, Pre-Publication, and Pre-Order programs.
We don't have a dedicated team for journals. The team who handles journals is the same team that managing our Community Pricing, Pre-Publication, and Pre-Order programs. This is just one small area that fits into the Logos line of business.
Cost. Galaxie produced their journals mainly using scripts to convert Word documents into Logos resources. We spend significantly more building and tagging our journals, which is what enables richer functionality with the journal labeling markup for label searching and the Journals guide section.
We've discussed delivering the Galaxie journals at a lower standard of tagging and functionality, which would mean they wouldn't work with the Journals guide section and label searching (in addition to other features enabled by advanced tagging). If we did that, we'd probably have sufficient funding to ship them now, though I'd have to double-check to be sure. Would you prefer that to waiting for funding to be reached to produce full Logos editions?
To expedite the funding/releasing of new journal bundles by FL, offer an all-access subscription service to all back issues of the journals, as well as any new issues that are offered. I know for us who invested in the back issues we've be paying for subscription access to the back issues as well, but at least it would give us access to all new journal issues. Those who subscribe to Galaxie now (like I do) are already double-paying since I own the back issues in Logos and are paying Galaxie to subscribe for access to the latest editions.
A Netflix-style subscription to journals is on our list for consideration for 2019. We have the systems support to do it, but we'd need to secure subscription licensing permissions from each of the rights holders to pull it off. That's probably doable, but would take some work.
Well, no offense to Phil or his folks. But the last day or so is truly amazing. It's like a detective story .... the comments about the regularity of the journals, while shipping below cost. And new prepubs just sitting until someone asked (and asked).
As it stands, the program looks pretty dead. CP looks less dead.
I'm in the group just happy for lots of great reading. It was definitely worth it.
Agreed, but that didn't seem to be the case for Galaxie. What's the difference? Cost. Galaxie produced their journals mainly using scripts to convert Word documents into Logos resources. We spend significantly more building and tagging our journals, which is what enables richer functionality with the journal labeling markup for label searching and the Journals guide section. We've discussed delivering the Galaxie journals at a lower standard of tagging and functionality, which would mean they wouldn't work with the Journals guide section and label searching (in addition to other features enabled by advanced tagging). If we did that, we'd probably have sufficient funding to ship them now, though I'd have to double-check to be sure. Would you prefer that to waiting for funding to be reached to produce full Logos editions?
I personally would be willing to go for it to get the journals back into Logos. The tagging/guide access is an OK plus, but honestly, I don't heavily use them with the journals. I've gotten to the point where I run my own custom searches against the journals using the stock Logos search operators (since I was doing that before you offered the tagging/guide access), and I can personally just as easily find what I need using those searches than I can with the guides or special tagging (in some instances, I can find what I need faster using this approach anyway).
The only issue I had with the journals that Galaxie offered in Logos was the bibliography citations in documents weren't great, so I had to go back and edit them. Now that I use a citation manager and pre-enter everything into it, this is one less issue I have now.
Honestly if the best you can offer short term is what Galaxie offered with only the functionality they offered in Logos and nothing else, I'd take it to get current journals. The rest were OK pluses, but not essential for my studies.
To expedite the funding/releasing of new journal bundles by FL, offer an all-access subscription service to all back issues of the journals, as well as any new issues that are offered. I know for us who invested in the back issues we've be paying for subscription access to the back issues as well, but at least it would give us access to all new journal issues. Those who subscribe to Galaxie now (like I do) are already double-paying since I own the back issues in Logos and are paying Galaxie to subscribe for access to the latest editions. A Netflix-style subscription to journals is on our list for consideration for 2019. We have the systems support to do it, but we'd need to secure subscription licensing permissions from each of the rights holders to pull it off. That's probably doable, but would take some work.
Would you have to go individually to the rights holders or could you get them from Galaxie (even if the functionality is reduced)?
I would be willing to take a less than usual Logos-standard-offering if that meant we could get them sooner. The cheaper element doesn't sound too bad either.
I'm responsible (with my teams) for business and product strategy and management for the following lines of business: General Discourse Faithlife Audio Faithlife Connect Faithlife Courses Faithlife Ebooks Noet Lexham (Logos) Logos Logos Cloud Logos Mobile Education Denominations/Traditions Anglican Baptist Lutheran Methodist and Wesleyan Orthodox Pentecostal and Charismatic Reformed Seventh-Day Adventist Verbum and Verbum Cloud Languages Chinese French German Korean Portuguese Software Biblico Logos and the following applications: Logos desktop app (Windows and Mac) Logos web app Logos mobile app (iOS and Android) Biblia mobile app (iOS and Android) Verbum desktop (Windows and Mac) Verbum web app Verbum mobile app (iOS and Android) Noet desktop (Windows and Mac) Noet web app Noet mobile app (iOS and Android) Biblia.com Faithlife Study Bible web app Faithlife Study Bible mobile app (iOS and Android) Faithlife Audio mobile app (iOS and Android) Faithlife Courses web app Faithlife Ebooks mobile app (iOS and Android) Flashcards mobile app (iOS and Android) and the following web stores: https://www.logos.com/ https://www.logos.com/es (becoming https://es.logos.com/ soon) https://de.logos.com/ http://pt.logos.com/ https://kr.logos.com/ http://tc.logos.com/ https://sc.logos.com/ https://verbum.com/ https://es.verbum.com/ https://noet.com/ https://ebooks.noet.com/ https://ebooks.faithlife.com/ https://audio.faithlife.com/ (coming soon) https://courses.faithlife.com/ (coming soon) https://connect.faithlife.com/ https://logoscloud.com/ Ben works for me and directs our products department and oversees the individuals who manage most of these lines of business, the product managers for our apps, and the team that managing our Community Pricing, Pre-Publication, and Pre-Order programs. We don't have a dedicated team for journals. The team who handles journals is the same team that managing our Community Pricing, Pre-Publication, and Pre-Order programs. This is just one small area that fits into the Logos line of business.
And I would say that concerning the long list above, that THIS is the problem! In the beginning, Logos focused on books and they did that "business" well. Then they started adding a new "business" and then "another new business line" and then denominational lines and also some extra tools and features and etc., etc., etc....more staff had to be added, thus salaries and benefits needed to be added to the budget and more customer service, etc., etc., etc....yes the company grew, but at what cost? Reality is the cost went up, but the quality went down.
Most of us just wanted to have a Bible software program that worked well, with a library where books could be added, and that was a successful model that Logos had. Journals back then wouldn't have been a problem. It "fit" the business line. Then journals were taken out, due to "poor tagging," and yet we haven't gotten anything consistently since. And I have to say, it is usually "the norm" that when I check on a footnote, it appears that I do not have the resource, since it is not tagged as such....and just before I go to Amazon to get the needed book (due to desperation for something needed in a class), I check my Logos library, and lo and behold, the book is there! I had the book all along, but the resource that I was in did not have it tagged to show me this. This has happened countless times. So tagging has not been that great, in my opinion.
So, do we want journals with less tagging? If that will get them in our hands immediately, then ABSOLUTELY!
I don't want to "start a war." This is just my opinion. I have been with Logos from the early days of CD Word and I have seen the changes. I love Logos and have put many thousands of dollars into the company. But something has to change. It can't continue to go in this direction. When journals "returned," they were immediately sold and produced. But as delays and unkept promises continued these past few years,, people have gone elsewhere to get their journals. I too had to get a Galaxie subscription for a few months, as I needed journals for school. I would rather not do a subscription and just buy my electronic journals with Logos. Nowadays I don't have a lot of money, but what I do have,, I would like it to go to Logos.
Please, Logos, rethink your position on journals. Please figure out a way to get them "back" into your line of "business."
Thanks for hearing me out.
This idea makes too much sense...it will never fly.
And I would say that concerning the long list above, that THIS is the problem!
Y'think? [I] I don't know...I don't think that absurdly long list is as absurd as it seems--that would be absurd!! [:O]
I've been wondering for a while it would be more cost effective for me to purchase base packages with journals than to purchase just a journal bundle. For example, the next base package up for me to acquire is Logos 7 Diamond with a dynamic price of $764. From a glance through the journals included in that package and comparing that to the MJB, it would seem that quite a lot of the journals in the MJB are included in Diamond (though certainly not all journals, nor the most recent volumes). The MJB 4.1 would cost me $1,132 currently.
Are the journals slightly more discounted in a base package than in a journal bundle? It's just looking like people could get more for their dollar through base packages. But maybe I'm not reading that correctly.
I also agree - and a careful reading of many of the post hear would suggest a similar sentiment.
But - WHY have we got to this state.
This is a radical question - but has Logos software (with such tagging) developed itself into a commercial corner.!!!!!
I would hate to think so but if the tagging is what is putting the cost price of a regular and frequent supply of journals beyond what can be sustained ( by Faithlife or Buyers) then we really do have a problem.
Let me also say I bought Logos 'primarily' as I was (at the time) convinced they were committed to a regular and frequent supply of quality journals. The books were all extra. If I don't by another Logos book again I wouldn't be too concerned - but I would if there were no more Journals.
I also agree - and a careful reading of many of the posts here would suggest a similar sentiment.
This is a radical question - but has Logos software (with such tagging) developed itself into a commercial corner.!!!!! ?
I would hate to think so, but if the tagging is what is putting the cost price of a regular and frequent supply of journals beyond what can be sustained ( by Faithlife or Buyers) then we really do have a problem.
Let me also say I bought Logos 'primarily' as I was (at the time) convinced they were committed to a regular and frequent supply of quality journals. The books bought were all extra. If I don't by another Logos book again I wouldn't be too concerned - but I would if there were no more Journals.
I Agree.
Absolutely! Reliable, regular and timely delivery is more important than tagging.
Something needs to change!
The Pre-Pub process is killing demand because users don't want to wait indefinitely for journals to be available. They go elsewhere. Journals are time-sensitive, in a way that other resources are not. The Pre-Pub process is a great business model for other resources, but it is dysfunctional for journals. Please ditch that business model for journals and provide them regularly, reliably on time, and in lower cost updates. Demand will increase, customers will be happy, and Faithlife will make more sales.
The suggested Netflix style subscription option would be great for those new to journals. I'm not so keen on it personally, having spent so much on journals already, unless it would have dynamic pricing. Yet, that would be a great secondary way to make journals available.
The tagging/guide access is an OK plus, but honestly, I don't heavily use them with the journals. I've gotten to the point where I run my own custom searches against the journals using the stock Logos search operators (since I was doing that before you offered the tagging/guide access), and I can personally just as easily find what I need using those searches than I can with the guides or special tagging (in some instances, I can find what I need faster using this approach anyway).
Hey Nathan, I have questions about this. By "tagging" does that mean if I do a Search in "All Resources" or "Journal Collection", if it is not "tagged", I wont get search results?
Can you elaborate on this a little more? What does less tagging entail? Would the journals still appear in a passage guide section what would relate to the article? If these are being brought down to the level of FLEB books then I don't see how this would be better but I might be in the minority at that point.
Occasionally we promote them to try to drive more funding. But other than that, no one is actively working on them. We're waiting for sufficient funding levels to be reached. Phil, This is simply a disaster. Please rethink how you are handling journals. FL's addiction to prepub is killing this product which just doesn't fit that sort of funding model. A book, lexicon, commentary? Yes. Journals which must be published in a timely way? Pre-pub doesn't work. Why could Galaxie manage to stay in business without prepub and FL with all it's size and resources can't find a way to make annual updates work? I don't buy it.
I made a point similar to this earlier but I think prepub is hurting a lot more than journals. There are incomplete commentary sets sitting in Logos due to prepub as well as books that might very well sell well overtime but people aren't willing to put a yes on something and wait two years for it to appear in their account when they can just buy it elsewhere.
Definitely able to work with Galaxie formatting and having current journals is the key!
Thank you, Phil, for your response.
This is an interesting response
According to this forum thread, on August 15, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Ben wrote the following:
We are still working on this project. I'm sorry it keeps getting pushed back. However, we now have one person who will own the project going forward, which means it won't have to fight for the attention of multiple stakeholders.
This would seem to indicate that someone has been assigned by you and Ben to own the project. I guess from your post, that is no longer the case?
Everything that has been written seems to indicate that this project is dead and FL does not have any interest in it unless it receives pre-pub funds to move forward.
My last question which I think has been alluded to already by others...why does this project have to be part of the pre-pub process? Not everything passes through the pre-pub process. Why is this project going that route?
Is it possible to forward journals to Faithlife ebooks and deliver them in timely manner with price reduced since no more tagging would be involved? That would eliminate pre-pub...
Agreed, but that didn't seem to be the case for Galaxie. What's the difference? Cost. Galaxie produced their journals mainly using scripts to convert Word documents into Logos resources. We spend significantly more building and tagging our journals, which is what enables richer functionality with the journal labeling markup for label searching and the Journals guide section. We've discussed delivering the Galaxie journals at a lower standard of tagging and functionality, which would mean they wouldn't work with the Journals guide section and label searching (in addition to other features enabled by advanced tagging). If we did that, we'd probably have sufficient funding to ship them now, though I'd have to double-check to be sure. Would you prefer that to waiting for funding to be reached to produce full Logos editions? Can you elaborate on this a little more? What does less tagging entail? Would the journals still appear in a passage guide section what would relate to the article? If these are being brought down to the level of FLEB books then I don't see how this would be better but I might be in the minority at that point.
Correct. Full text search would still work, but no special tagging that would bring it up in guides, etc. I'm in the minority with you. I want the journals complete with tagging and on time without the prepub process and discount. It just needs to be done. It just doesn't seem like it's good for FL or anyone for it not to be made available, timely, whatever the cost.
Let's see.[*-)] What to pick? What to pick? I can get journals without extensive tags. Or .... I don't get journals at all. I know! Let's get journals without extensive tags. No brainer.
Ditto. Though apparently there's 2 different groups. Plus, if you don't tag, the next 30 years of single issue sales are in question.
My recommend would be:
- Crank the prepub price up, but split the offerings (more affordable).
- Early tag, if the above stablizes demand.
If not, I assume ATLAS is the answer.
I want complete tagging in ALL my journals, so all my features work as expected. I don't want two tiers of Journals, tagged and untagged. Galaxie had problems with their "Pearl" scripts, and using Galaxie files we would lose Subject and Author tagging, as well as integration into the sermon guide.
Logos tagging is what make Logos stand head and shoulders above the others. But I would like to add that in every business there are some products that are sold at a lower profit margin. Profit is not a dirty work, but in the case of journals can we have a rethink on the part of the Logos team about this issue? I remember days when Logos produced certain title's just because they should be produced. maybe getting the costs covered by base packaging the journals would work like it does for some other slow moving prepubs that should be produced.
A number of people got addicted to the pricing model that Galaxie created, and I don't have a solution for that. And Increasing the quality has impacted significantly the cost involved. Journals were popular or so I believed, but every go round on the journal offerings has been a slow drag to completion. Is there just not enough interest in it?
Once we got the Galaxie backlog tagged will the pricing model be more affordable and sustainable?
Can you explain this? What is ATLAS?
Let's see. What to pick? What to pick? I can get journals without extensive tags. Or .... I don't get journals at all. I know! Let's get journals without extensive tags. No brainer.
I agree... I am tired to having outdated journals when I get them. But beside this, how much of a price difference is there between current offerings (with full tagging) and if they release them without the tagging?
If not, I assume ATLAS is the answer. Can you explain this? What is ATLAS?
Easiest to see it relative to Logos:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:community.logos.com%20atlas%20journals
No brainer.
This phrase has always tickled me.
"You keep using that phrase...I do not think it means what you think it means."
I think a big part of the problem here is that Faithlife have gone for quantity over quality. A large number of the journals offered are not especially valuable academically — but the weaker journals cost the same to produce as the good ones. The solution to a slow pre-pub is therefore not to reduce the quality even further (by automating the tagging) but to reduce the quantity by eliminating the journals that few have heard of and are rarely cited.
but to reduce the quantity by eliminating the journals that few have heard of and are rarely cited.
With that I agree. How FL determines which ones to cut is another question. My flower is your weed, but we'd probably agree on a number of them. Perhaps a search of the Logos catalog for citations would reveal the candidates to cut.
I've been content with those in the Theology Journal bundle but have decided to order the pre-pub for the Galaxie title of the same name. JETS is there and what is in Logos' Theology Journal bundle, so I'm content. My price is $63. If FL can completely tag those journals for that price you can put me down for an annual subscription.
We need timely and well-tagged journals, but not all the journals FL currently offers.
but to reduce the quantity by eliminating the journals that few have heard of and are rarely cited. With that I agree. How FL determines which ones to cut is another question. My flower is your weed, but we'd probably agree on a number of them. Perhaps a search of the Logos catalog for citations would reveal the candidates to cut.
I second (third?) this point. And I have championed using Logos references/citations as the measuring stick for years (with no influence, as far as I can tell). The journals I keep banging the drum for are on my list precisely because I keep encountering them over and over again.
I get it...the least requested and useful journals are probably the ones most easy to acquire. They are also practically worthless. Of the Galaxie titles, perhaps 4-5 have legit utility, but they come as package. I get it. But with all the rest, being more picky and making room for FREQUENTLY CITED journals is the way to go.
Phil and Ben
You have a number of brainstormed ideas in this thread these past few days. Can we get a reaction? Are you listening? Would it help to set up a video call with some on this thread who you believe have offered some good solutions to help move things along? It seems to me, there are ways forward. What it not apparent to me is that there is an interest in moving forward on the part of FL.
