Basic Search/Factbook Topic search disparity

It would appear that journals tagged with a topic in Factbook do not show in search results when using Basic Search. I confirmed this across different topics (see example below). Additionally, why can't we have the Articles subsection for results in Basic Search when the functionality exists in Factbook? Or is the difference only alphabetical vs ranked?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

JT (alabama24)

I am not an expert on search syntax. My first thought is that you might have the syntax wrong. Did you verify that with the wiki?

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045159#Comment_1045159

When I performed the search, it used the same syntax. However, I did notice that there were more sections on my search. This may be because I did a "search everything" whereas you did a search all text in all resources. I think that is the difference.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045161#Comment_1045161

See this screenshot:

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045161#Comment_1045161

This may be because I did a "search everything" whereas you did a search all text in all resources. I think that is the difference.

That would be normal for other sections indeed such as books.logos.com. However:

(1) I am using the topic from the autopopulating list (the same in both Factbook and Basic Search). So there should be no problem of syntax here.

(2) Journals are resources: if a journal is tagged with a topic, it should show when I search for that topic in all resources. It does not. The differences I have noted were hits in journals found in Factbook (albeit listed as a separate section) and not showing in Basic Search.

Andrew Batishko

I believe this is the syntax you are looking for:

{Label Journal Article WHERE Topics ~ <Topic Nicene Creed>}

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045168#Comment_1045168

I am NOT looking for syntax! I am making the observation that a topic search does not produce results in basic search that are found in Factbook!

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045168#Comment_1045168

I believe this is the syntax you are looking for:

{Label Journal Article WHERE Topics ~ <Topic Nicene Creed>}

Andrew - I don't know why a more complex search (i.e. "find all journal articles tagged with the topic of 'Nicene Creed'") would pull back more hits than the simpler one (i.e. "find all resources tagged with the topic of 'Nicene Creed'"). I think that is his frustration.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045168#Comment_1045168

I believe this is the syntax you are looking for:

{Label Journal Article WHERE Topics ~ <Topic Nicene Creed>}

Logos 8.4 RC 1 8.4.0.0032 search results are puzzling since Journal Article label search does not find Westminster Theological Journal volume 23

Right click on Journal Article title for search this resource generated a search that found nothing.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Dave Hooton

I get two Nicene Creed topics in v8.3. The difference is illustrated below

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045177#Comment_1045177

I am NOT looking for syntax! I am making the observation that a topic search does not produce results in basic search that are found in Factbook!

I would not expect them to match. The Factbook uses different search syntax for different sections. The Search uses a single search syntax for all sections. What I find frustrating is where the Factbook or Guide builds search syntax that doesn't yield the reasonably expected search string/results.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045227#Comment_1045227

I would not expect them to match. The Factbook uses different search syntax for different sections. The Search uses a single search syntax for all sections.

This would yet be another "works as expected once you know what's going on under the hood" answer that makes no sense whatsoever from a user-friendliness standpoint.

Users want to find where a topic is found period. It makes no sense at all to think that the search function should not find resources that are tagged for it when Factbook can. If a different syntax is required to tally all relevant results, then search ought to be able to aggregate these results to produce comprehensive results.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045244#Comment_1045244

It makes no sense at all to think that the search function should not find resources that are tagged for it when Factbook can.

BINGO.

Searches for all things tagged with XYZ Topic should find all things tagged with XYZ Topic. Failure to do that is a BUG. Programmer-intended failure to do that is an error in judgment.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045224#Comment_1045224

I get two Nicene Creed topics in v8.3.

So do I. In Basic Search, they generate identical syntax and the same results, whereas in Factbook they do not, as you have shown.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045271#Comment_1045271

I had noted the duplicate but I don't think that's the problem since I tried with other topics for which there was no duplicate, yet there is disparity between search and factbook (always journals hits missing). Check for instance <Topic Calvinism>.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045270#Comment_1045270

Failure to do that is a BUG. Programmer-intended failure to do that is an error in judgment.

It is a flaw in the design but precisely the type of flaw I have come to expect in Logos; just as I have come to expect the data to be incomplete. In the past, we have been successful in getting FL to address specific cases by getting enough people to yell loudly enough. We know that their next focus of fixes and enhancements is for the academics - get the academics to complain in sufficient number. There's a thread for it.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045270#Comment_1045270

It makes no sense at all to think that the search function should not find resources that are tagged for it when Factbook can.

BINGO.

Searches for all things tagged with XYZ Topic should find all things tagged with XYZ Topic. Failure to do that is a BUG. Programmer-intended failure to do that is an error in judgment.

The advertised search capabilities and power of Logos is what initially caused me to decide several years ago to bite the financial bullet, walk away from the investment I had made in a competitor's software and library, and move to Logos.

I still believe the move to Logos was a good decision, but not because of the search capabilities. I have been disappointed and/or confused so many times by my search results that I rarely bother any more. I simply avoid searches if at all possible because I don't understand why I don't get hits on things in my search results that I can find manually in my resources.

Based on a number of "search" related threads I've read in the forum, I know Logos has powerful search capabilities because there are people who are able to milk Logos for information in some amazing ways. But as someone who doesn't have time to master the sometimes intricate and involved search decisions/processes/syntax, I so often just find myself confused and/or disappointed with the process and the results, that I usually feel I've wasted my time in the attempt. And it's a snowball affect--the less I use it, the more daunting it seems and the less motivated I am to try it again.

For me, the bottom line is that while I know my lack of benefit is due in part to my lack of understanding in how to best use the search features, I don't expect to be able to invest the time needed to develop that understanding to the level needed to adequately reap the benefits of the search capabilities in Logos. There is much however that I appreciate about the software and the resource options available.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1045347#Comment_1045347

Hopefully there will be a response from FL, not just a quiet let it go by.