Most Important Logos 8 Bugs and Improvements for Academic/Seminary Users

Yes!

Also, several places, Hebrew or Semitic transliteration is problematic, e.g. you'll get an italicized word with most of the letters in italics, but something with a superscript (like š or ś) or subscript (ḥ or ḫ or ḏ) won't be. It's very distracting. 

Instead of a footnote saying "Ibid" which makes it very difficult to locate the original source, could they all refer to the full resource? Given the size/type/colour of the preceding footnotes, it can make for a difficult hunt for the first resource note. This is especially true in that using Logos we are skipping between many resources and not reading each one from the beginning.

So true!!!!  [Y][Y][Y]

I would like to be able to build a bibliography within Logos where I can add resources that are not in Logos. Any bibliography I build in Logos will be incomplete. This would be a nice addition.

Agree.

I don't. There are softwares that do that already and one can export Logos titles to these to combine with non-Logos titles. The more we had to Logos that can already be done out of it and is not really the province of Bible software, the more it will bloated and even slower than it already is. Plus it takes away budget, development and support time for other things. No reading pdfs, checking email, browsing the web, and brewing a cup of coffee through Logos please!

Please no more “disagree” replies though.

Disagreed! I mean no offense here and the point is not to put down anyone. Together we think through proposals and can improve on them. Some ideas can look good at first but really not be while criticism can be overturned with judicious observations. Moreover whether or not something is implemented affects all users, so if someone thinks that an idea would have a negative impact on their experience, they should be able to say so. Disagreement needs not be negative or unconstructive if done in the right spirit and manner. However, I respect your right to disagree with me on this point... [;)]

I disagree of your disagreement of his disagreement of your disagreement of their suggestion! ...haha...sorry, I just couldn't resist. JK.

You stole my line! I anticipated that reply and planned to reply something like this!

Instead of a footnote saying "Ibid" which makes it very difficult to locate the original source, could they all refer to the full resource?

Could you clarify what exactly you mean?

If I'm reading a text, I see a footnote. If the footnote says "Ibid" page 27, I have no idea to what the Ibid refers. I have to find the previous footnote, but it might say "Ibid" as well. So I may have to search for a number of footnotes until one doesn't say "Ibid," but actually gives the resource location. 

Footnote markers are small in Logos, and there is the possibility that I might inadvertently skip the correct footnote and move back to another previous footnote that is not the correct resource. 

Example:

Footnote 28--Full resource information

Footnote 29--Full resource information

Footnote 30--Ibid, page 23

Footnote 31--Ibid, page 78

Footnote 32--Ibid

Footnote 33--Ibid, page ix.

If I start reading the resource in a paragraph that includes Footnote 33, I must search for footnote 32, then 31, then 30, then 29. These could be paragraphs apart, or even pages apart. So much time is spent scanning the page to find the elusive footnote number. There is also the likely possibility that I will loose track counting backward, and end up at footnote 28 instead of 29.

Ibid works well when one book or article is being read as a complete whole. This is how it should be done for a paper. But the nature of Logos is that you can hyperlink right into the middle of a page or paragraph to the part that interests you. That means it is incumbent on the reader to search for previous footnotes.

My suggesting is that everywhere Ibid occurs, the actual resource in indicated.

LaTeX support. PBB LaTeX reader, and print with LaTeX output options.

Could you clarify what exactly you mean?

Let's say you click on footnote 14, and it says "ibid" ("ibid" means "the same as the previous reference"). You then have to find, and click on, footnote 13, to find out what book it refers to. If you're unlucky, it too will say "ibid.", and you'll then have to go back to footnote 12, or even footnote 11 or earlier…

This is a valid and important point and one that I hope isn't ignored. The 'ibids' were invented in an era of mechanical printing to save time and effort (and thus money) on printing, and were used on a hard copy where looking at a list meant scanning your eyes up the page a bit to find the original citation.

In the electronic publishing world, these abbreviations are not necessary (copy and paste), and when citations are viewed through pop-ups, make things much more complicated than they should be. (However, until the style manuals agree, we probably won't see much change.)

This isn't a lot different from the dropping of the double space after a period. A necessary convention in paper printing became a formatting issue in electronic publishing, and needed to go away. Though I've rarely seen as much anger about something absolutely tiny in my life as asking people to do away with the second space after a period. [:)]

Off the top of my head, I seem to remember that neither the morphology charts nor the tagging of the LHB have ever been completely finished. It seems to me that both of these would be a must for academic/seminary users.

Morphology Charts:

• I definitely think fixing/completing morphology charts should be a high priority, since it seems like there are problems with the Hebrew words. Here's an example of an error I found in the morphology charts but I know I've seen others: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/178898.aspx. Here's one someone else posted from 2015 that hasn't been fixed: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/98011.aspx.

• The morphology charts sometimes cut off parts of verses if the verses are indented like quotes or poetry. See this forum post: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/156224.aspx.

• I would also like LXX word forms to be included for Greek words, right now only New Testament word forms are included. (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/177245.aspx, https://community.logos.com/forums/p/113893/754620.aspx#754620)

• Most importantly, I would like to be able to open the morphology chart for a lemma from the context menu. Right now you can get there by first clicking on the Bible Word Study guide from the context menu and then clicking on Morphology Chart within the guide. Why not just put a link directly to the Morphology Chart on the context menu itself?

Word Lists:

On a separate note, I have a small simple request (although I know it's not a bug): Can the Word Lists please include the number of words on the list so that you can quickly know how much lemmas are on each word list? See this forum post for rationale: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/176766.aspx

Reverse Interlinears:

• Academic users would benefit from having reverse interlinears for the following bibles: NJPS (Tanakh 1985), NET, CEB (including apocrypha), REB (including apocrypha), and the NETS (Septuagint).

• BUG: The RSV is missing interlinear information for the following books: Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. See this forum post for more details (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/174718.aspx). Initially I included Song of the Three Youths and 2 Esdras, however Song of the Three Youths seems to be working now, and 2 Esdras never had any interlinear info since the original text is in Latin (according to Isaiah from Faithlife). This problem does not exist for the RSVCE or RSV2CE.

Everyone that has been mentioning visual advanced search is speaking my main concern. A nice side panel search with all the advance search codes organized in a logical manner. This could even allow for refining searches. 

Kiyah:

We're sorry that you are still experiencing this issue. What's the version of the RSV and reverse interlinears you are working from? They should be stamped with 2018-11-06. We'll do our best to get this resolved.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention again!

Isaiah

My RSV is indeed the 2018-11-06 version, as are the interlinears. I always let Logos update everything automatically, so I have the latest stable version of Logos as well (SR-3, 8.3.0.0034).

Kiyah:

I wasn't able to determine anything with your log files, but I believe I've gotten to the root of the problem (at long last). Thank you for your patience waiting for this to get properly fixed.

A new version of the RSV with reverse interlinears is scheduled to ship this coming Monday.

Yay! Thanks Isaiah!