Can you help us improve search?
Hello everyone,
We'd love your help in understanding how we can improve Logos search. Could you spare five minutes to answer seven questions about one of the ways we're thinking of improving search? Your participation will help us improve Logos for everyone.
Thank you!
Comments
-
I cooperated but I am very curious as to why you have focused on the autocompleter?
I would suggest these are equally important:
- make the 3 options in the panel menu, visible and settable in the Search panel
- make the range of the search (verse, article, chapter, clause) explicit in the Search panel rather than having it be esoteric knowledge
- ensure that all keywords and symbols are illustrated in the cookbook/template although some should be only visible by expansion e.g. Match
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I too filled out the form but I seldom tend to use the auto-completer. Maybe I should but I don't.
In light of this I too think what MJ suggests is worth developing as I would be more likely to benefit from those.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I cooperated but I am very curious as to why you have focused on the autocompleter?
Actually, I tried to cooperate, but was at a loss what to answer and suggest once I had indicated I most often don't use autocomplete in Logos. It's more of a nuisance than a help in standard Basic and Bible search - I do like the support I get with lemmas and such original language stuff. But in everyday English or German usage I regularly ignore the words, concepts and factbook entries I get suggested and stick with what I have put in.
In fact, reflecting over this, I asked myself why this is the case. Not sure - for some reason I don't trust the data quality behind all those suggestions and want search to execute what I put in, not hand me some curated results which may or may not be correctly and completely tagged. FWIW: I do use and like autocomplete in Google.
MJ. Smith said:I would suggest these are equally much more important:
- make the 3 options in the panel menu, visible and settable in the Search panel YES! YES! YES!
- make the range of the search (verse, article, chapter, clause) explicit in the Search panel rather than having it be esoteric knowledge
- ensure that all keywords and symbols are illustrated in the cookbook/template although some should be only visible by expansion e.g. Match
fixed the quote. And for bullet 1 please read Search panel to include the Inline search panel in resources
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I cooperated but I am very curious as to why you have focused on the autocompleter?
Only that we're less clear about what users want from that feature. It doesn't mean we think it's the most important problem to solve.
0 -
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:
we're less clear about what users want from that feature
Ah, I would give a different answer to what I think the "average user" wants compared to what I would want. What I hear people asking for is something similar to some of the general editors for code. By which I mean that if one enters { it automatically adds }, or < generates > also. Or if I enter {Label M -- the drop down for M includes only valid labels beginning with M ... and the WHERE is automatically generated and attribute values are limited to ... You get the idea. If you have ever written the definition cards for a specific language in a general editor you've done something similar. While one can helpfully go far down this path, there are enough parameters that are wide open that I suspect people would be disappointed for two reasons:
- there are too many places where the list of possible values is sufficient long that it is nearly equivalent to the current list
- while it reminds people to the correct syntax, you still have to think through the logical form of what you want ... some users want it to answer questions as improbable as "give me all the memory verses my Sunday school taught preschoolers."
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
What I hear people asking for is something similar to some of the general editors for code. By which I mean that if one enters { it automatically adds }, or < generates > also. Or if I enter {Label M -- the drop down for M includes only valid labels beginning with M ... and the WHERE is automatically generated and attribute values are limited to ... You get the idea
Sounds familiar. I'm not saying that's a design we're necessarily considering, though. That's an old, old post.
0 -
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Fabian said:
If I've understood that post correctly, your suggestion is that autocomplete only suggests words that can be found in the resource(s) you're searching in and doesn't make suggestions that would give zero results.
0 -
Yes. At least as an option.
Today. The autocomplete doesn't find it. Or I don't know how to do it. Bibles and other texts have often their unique words. Nebukadnezzar, Nebucadnezar etc. I know in English they are mostly standardized, but not in German, Italian etc. So the autocomplete should make suggestion which is actually in the resource which is open. And it should find it which is not the case today.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
For example the ESV. The word "barren" is in the text but it doesn't come up. Sorry I cannot upload the image.
And for PBB's there is no indexing at all.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Fabian said:
For example the ESV. The word "barren" is in the text but it doesn't come up.
Strange. I see it suggested and Search finds the 20 hits
Fabian said:And for PBB's there is no indexing at all.That's not how Logos normally works. Something seems to be broken with the indexes on your installation.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Yes if you type the full word, but not if you type "barr". So the suggestion doesn't work. I get "barricade" and "barrenness" as suggestion but not "barren".
To the second point. I have since then installed a few updates. Non has fixed it. Are you sure it works? I have tested it with the Greek Quran I made and the Volxbibel.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Fabian said:
Yes if you type the full word, but not if you type "barr". So the suggestion doesn't work. I get "barricade" and "barrenness" as suggestion but not "barren".
It's different for me (both Verbum 9.11 SR-1 and Logos 9.12 Beta 4 under English UI)
but I see what you mean when I use bible search in ESV in a German language UI - seems like a bug for Ben Misja and his team.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
On Mac I have it on the English UI too.
If I type "Glau", the suggestion is only "<>Glaucus Datatype". None of the German VolxBibel PBB words coming up. Also from the LSV Bible is nothing in the search entry as a suggestion.
I have to say I imported it as the German UI was active.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
On Mac I have it on the English UI too.
If I type "Glau", the suggestion is only "<>Glaucus Datatype". None of the German VolxBibel PBB words coming up. Also from the LSV Bible is nothing in the search entry as a suggestion.
I have to say I imported it as the German UI was active.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Hello Mark
O.K. First I'm on Mac and use German UI.
To point 1: On the German UI (or maybe all other non English UI), the suggestion are buggy. Need to be fixed.
To point 2: Even in the English UI I have no suggestions by PBB! Need a Fix or improvement.
In the past I have tested to use the search only to Greek in my Greek Quran. But I got suggestions for words which are not in the Quran and the words in the Quran was not popping up. That was the reason for the post in the thread I linked above. So totally useless, only if you want to search Logos for that word it was good. But the actual resource was not listed.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Fabian said:
Yes. At least as an option.
Today. The autocomplete doesn't find it. Or I don't know how to do it. Bibles and other texts have often their unique words. Nebukadnezzar, Nebucadnezar etc. I know in English they are mostly standardized, but not in German, Italian etc. So the autocomplete should make suggestion which is actually in the resource which is open. And it should find it which is not the case today.
Hi Fabian,
I'm not able to reproduce this. Can you let me know what Bible's beyond the ESV where you are seeing this?
0 -
Having read some of the comments, I'm going to go against the grain a bit and comment before I complete the questionnaire and then come back and comment after I've interacted with the questions. I am totally unfamiliar with autocomplete. I would have to research how to use this functionality. I'm fairly active on the forums, do quite a bit of watching in the background and cull through the posts discriminatingly. Thus, I'm surprised that I am unfamiliar with this feature. I use search quite a lot in my daily Logos regimen.Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:Hello everyone,
We'd love your help in understanding how we can improve Logos search. Could you spare five minutes to answer seven questions about one of the ways we're thinking of improving search? Your participation will help us improve Logos for everyone.
Thank you!
I can't say I would or would not use this device. At this point my opinion of it is guarded since I have not been introduced to its possible advantages. Now, having said all this, I will now take the questionnaire.
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.4 1TB SSD
0 -
Oh Yeah, I do know what autocomplete is and I use it regularly to fill in Greek and Hebrew words/lemmas. Past that I find it regularly unhelpful. It never seems offer the assistance I need in Basic Search.
KS4J is my autocompleter! BTW I haven't seen him posting lately, I do pray he's well. Bible Browser is very helpful. If you could develop a tool for Basic Search that was similarly productive it may fill the bill.
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.4 1TB SSD
0 -
Beloved Amodeo said:
Bible Browser is very helpful. If you could develop a tool for Basic Search that was similarly productive it may fill the bill.
I've already done this for myself ... I think of the Bible Browser as part of the search function.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:MJ. Smith said:
What I hear people asking for is something similar to some of the general editors for code. By which I mean that if one enters { it automatically adds }, or < generates > also. Or if I enter {Label M -- the drop down for M includes only valid labels beginning with M ... and the WHERE is automatically generated and attribute values are limited to ... You get the idea
Sounds familiar. I'm not saying that's a design we're necessarily considering, though. That's an old, old post.
Why not? If you want to improve search, this is the way to do it. It may be an old post, but it is relevent even today. It has never been done to date. Is that because it is too difficult? If I want to do a search, I need to go to my browser bookmarks and look up Detailed search help in order to figure out the best search syntax. Most of the time I do not do this because it is a pain in the neck. But as far as I know, it is the only way to get accurate or specific results.
So, if you want to improve search, then this design ought to be considered.
However, if you are not going to consider it, then the way to improve search is to have the search engine not need the syntax that it currently needs.
0 -
Mark said:
So, if you want to improve search, then this design ought to be considered.
However, if you are not going to consider it, then the way to improve search is to have the search engine not need the syntax that it currently needs.
Over the last decade I have fiddled with potential search feature interfaces and found it to be a surprising intractable for a search engine as powerful and diverse as that in Logos. I finally came to the conclusion that no redesign of the search interface will meet the needs of the user unless there is a very strong and comprehensive training element on how to form logically and semantically sound search requests. It may well be that no one agrees with me, but I am usually overly not underly optimistic in user interfaces.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Do let the secret out...I'll drink the Kool Aid.MJ. Smith said:Beloved Amodeo said:Bible Browser is very helpful. If you could develop a tool for Basic Search that was similarly productive it may fill the bill.
I've already done this for myself ... I think of the Bible Browser as part of the search function.
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.4 1TB SSD
0 -
I agree with you!MJ. Smith said:Mark said:So, if you want to improve search, then this design ought to be considered.
However, if you are not going to consider it, then the way to improve search is to have the search engine not need the syntax that it currently needs.
Over the last decade I have fiddled with potential search feature interfaces and found it to be a surprising intractable for a search engine as powerful and diverse as that in Logos. I finally came to the conclusion that no redesign of the search interface will meet the needs of the user unless there is a very strong and comprehensive training element on how to form logically and semantically sound search requests. It may well be that no one agrees with me, but I am usually overly not underly optimistic in user interfaces.
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.4 1TB SSD
0 -
Mark said:Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:MJ. Smith said:
What I hear people asking for is something similar to some of the general editors for code. By which I mean that if one enters { it automatically adds }, or < generates > also. Or if I enter {Label M -- the drop down for M includes only valid labels beginning with M ... and the WHERE is automatically generated and attribute values are limited to ... You get the idea
Sounds familiar. I'm not saying that's a design we're necessarily considering, though. That's an old, old post.
Why not? If you want to improve search, this is the way to do it. It may be an old post, but it is relevent even today. It has never been done to date. Is that because it is too difficult? If I want to do a search, I need to go to my browser bookmarks and look up Detailed search help in order to figure out the best search syntax. Most of the time I do not do this because it is a pain in the neck. But as far as I know, it is the only way to get accurate or specific results.
So, if you want to improve search, then this design ought to be considered.
However, if you are not going to consider it, then the way to improve search is to have the search engine not need the syntax that it currently needs.
There are lots of ways we could help with the problem of complex searching including better autocomplete and easier syntax. We're thinking through several possible options. But I didn't want to give anyone the impression we were committing to implement a suggestion I made seven years ago, long before I joined Faithlife!
0 -
Mark said:
Why not? If you want to improve search, this is the way to do it. It may be an old post, but it is relevent even today. It has never been done to date. Is that because it is too difficult? If I want to do a search, I need to go to my browser bookmarks and look up Detailed search help in order to figure out the best search syntax. Most of the time I do not do this because it is a pain in the neck. But as far as I know, it is the only way to get accurate or specific results.
So, if you want to improve search, then this design ought to be considered.
However, if you are not going to consider it, then the way to improve search is to have the search engine not need the syntax that it currently needs.
Well stated Mark! I agree 110% [Y]
Also "Basic" search is a misnomer. Searching a word or a simple phrase is straight forward enough, but once I get past that it is no longer "Basic". For me to do more complex searches it requires much time searching help, reading and rereading, and trying different suggestions and many times I still don't get it.[:(]
The good news is, if I do stumble on one that works I save it in a Favorites folder so I don't have to go through that pain again, because you know I won't remember how to do it the next time. [:D]
Mark Barnes- your old post idea looks like how I would perceive making complex searches better. However, I'm not a developer.
Is it doable programing wise?
What are the drawbacks of this concept?
What capabilities would we lose using it that we have now?
Too soon old. Too late smart.
0 -
Bill said:
Mark Barnes- your old post idea looks like how I would perceive making complex searches better. However, I'm not a developer.
Do you want to make complex search syntax easier to enter? Or would you prefer not to need such complex syntax in the first place?
0 -
Thanks for asking Mark.
Option One- I think if we must use complex syntax it should be easier to enter. For me, and I assume for many, the syntax is not understandable, clear or easy to remember, but it is powerful. Can option number two provide that same power?
Option Two- Obviously I would prefer not to have to use complex syntax, However, my concern with option two, if I understand it correctly, is that we may lose the power and flexibility to build our own searches, and be limited to using pre designed canned searches that may not meet our need. Even if we were left with the option of building searches with complex syntax in this option, it would not resolve the issues in option one I pointed out.
Don't know if this makes sense, or is even feasible, but if the program could determine the type of search we are attempting by the words or terms we type, and either enter the proper syntax, or offer a drop down list of workable options, that would help the user by not having to remember which syntax or terms to use or where to place it. Through use, I think it would also become a good training tool for the user.
Conclusion; Keep the power of complex searches, but make the syntax easier to understand, use, and enter, or make the syntax it self less complicated.[:D]
Thank you, I hope this is somewhat helpful.
Too soon old. Too late smart.
0 -
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:
Do you want to make complex search syntax easier to enter? Or would you prefer not to need such complex syntax in the first place?
I personally would strongly prefer not to need the complex search syntax in the first place. But I like Bill's compromise suggestion, to offer the option for those who want to continue using the complex syntax.
Option A: When typing in a search query, autocomplete will show options in the form of well-formed search syntax queries
Option B: When typing in a search query, autocomplete will show options of frequently requested searches successfully executed by other users similar to what you're typing (similar to Google's autocomplete)
I also agree with Bill that "Basic Search" has been a misnomer that should have been changed to something like "General Search" long time ago. I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet.
0 -
Philana R. Crouch said:Fabian said:
Yes. At least as an option.
Today. The autocomplete doesn't find it. Or I don't know how to do it. Bibles and other texts have often their unique words. Nebukadnezzar, Nebucadnezar etc. I know in English they are mostly standardized, but not in German, Italian etc. So the autocomplete should make suggestion which is actually in the resource which is open. And it should find it which is not the case today.
Hi Fabian,
I'm not able to reproduce this. Can you let me know what Bible's beyond the ESV where you are seeing this?
Hello Philana
Maybe autocomplete is not the right term. Suggestions what is IN the Actual text would fit it better.
I mocked it here https://community.logos.com/forums/p/199019/1154916.aspx#1154916 to get more attention.
I also discuss it here https://community.logos.com/forums/t/206074.aspx The website translator of Apple is not bad. Or you can use deepl.com for better results.
Fabian
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:
Do you want to make complex search syntax easier to enter?
List of values for complex search autocompletion would be appreciated: e.g. labels, grammatical constructions, headwords, milestones, ...
For example, if my search has
{Section <GrammaticalConstructions V
having autocomplete pop-up of valid GrammaticalConstructions beginning with V would be appreciated. Awesome would be including aliases: e.g. "Verbless Clause" is also called "Nominal Clause" and "Noun Clause" (clicking "Noun Clause" in pop-up could cause "Verbless Clause" to appear in my search).
Backing up a bit is if my search has
{Section
then autocomplete pop-up could show popular {Section ... search terms (if entire list of valid {Section options is too big for sub-second assistance).
Autocomplete assistance taking more than a second to appear is disruptive for human thinking (short term memory limitation). Many times have desired option to turn off search assistant "help" that took too long to appear.
Also have experienced a completed search having autocomplete suggestions popping up again & again when changing tab focus (annoying at times).
My quirk is preferring new tabs to be in one floating window (often for a screen shot illustration in a forum discussion). New Syntax Search defaults to needing a new floating window.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Fabian said:
Maybe autocomplete is not the right term. Suggestions what is IN the Actual text would fit it better.
I mocked it here https://community.logos.com/forums/p/199019/1154916.aspx#1154916 to get more attention.
I also discuss it here https://community.logos.com/forums/t/206074.aspx The website translator of Apple is not bad. Or you can use deepl.com for better results.
The current implementation does suggest only those text terms that are actually in the resource. Or at least it's supposed to. If it doesn't, that's a bug.
Neither Philana nor I can recreate your experience when the application is set to German and searching ESV. I'm seeing it suggest "barren", "barrier", and "barracks". Philana is hoping to get some additional information that will help us recreate the bug.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Beloved, You might find the secret Kool Aid here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/197659.aspx
MJ shows how the Bible Browser sets up a search by using "Send To" function. Pretty cool Kool Aid!
-john
And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers (Mal 4:6a)
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
The current implementation does suggest only those text terms that are actually in the resource. Or at least it's supposed to. If it doesn't, that's a bug.
Neither Philana nor I can recreate your experience when the application is set to German and searching ESV. I'm seeing it suggest "barren", "barrier", and "barracks". Philana is hoping to get some additional information that will help us recreate the bug.
Have you read the posts seriously?
First: I have NO suggestions in PBBs at all. That should be easy to track down.
Second: In the ESV I have different suggestions depending if Logos or Verbum are in German or English.
To the bugs above I had as suggestion "barred" (Logos on English) as I clicked on it I got "bars".
Bug: No suggestions in PBB. It is completely absent.
Bug: Logos in German I found two words. Both are in the ESV. Why the others are missed the suggestions. They should be 5.
Bug: Logos in English I found 5 words. One I get in German is missed (it seems this is not from the ESV, even if it is popping up). And one suggestion gives wrong results (bars instead of barren).
Bug: NB.Mick had "Barren" "Barriere" in the ESV search. Both are German words. https://community.logos.com/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=1199334&Quote=False. You can't say this is from the resource. He suggested, Logos take the words from a German word list, not from the actual resource. Why he get total different suggestions? BTW my Mac is not primarily on German UI. German is only the second language if there is no translation to the primarily one. But either way: Logos don't take the words/numbers from the actual resource. Neither on the ESV nor on PBB if is on German. And also not from PBB if it is on English as well.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
Thank you, John. I missed this tour de force. MJ reveals the magic of Bible Browser. It's better than Kool Aid and delivers on its promises. I really have to comb through this and glean all of its riches.John Connell said:Beloved, You might find the secret Kool Aid here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/197659.aspx
MJ shows how the Bible Browser sets up a search by using "Send To" function. Pretty cool Kool Aid!
-john
Meanwhile, Jesus kept on growing wiser and more mature, and in favor with God and his fellow man.
International Standard Version. (2011). (Lk 2:52). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.
MacBook Pro MacOS Sequoia 15.4 1TB SSD
0 -
Fabian said:
Have you read the posts seriously?
Absolutely. They have not provided us with enough information to allow us to recreate your problems.
Fabian said:First: I have NO suggestions in PBBs at all.
Thank you. I can recreate this problem. I've written up a case to fix this issue.
Fabian said:Second: In the ESV I have different suggestions depending if Logos or Verbum are in German or English.
I believe I understand now what you are seeing. This is due to the behavior of the Match All Word Forms option. If you open a Search panel and open the panel menu, you will see that you have selected the option to Match All Word Forms. Uncheck that option. Then you should see the same suggestions in English and German.
I believe the difference when that is turned on is due to the fact that the process that finds word forms is based on the language of the UI, and using the German process is not going to work as well on English text. This does seem like it could do a better job in certain situations (particularly when searching a single book). I have written up a case to make an improvement here.
Fabian said:To the bugs above I had as suggestion "barred" (Logos on English) as I clicked on it I got "bars".
This is working as intended. If you open a Search panel and open the panel menu, you will see that you have selected the option to Match All Word Forms. If you turn that option off, then the other hits won't be returned.
Fabian said:Bug: NB.Mick had "Barren" "Barriere" in the ESV search. Both are German words. https://community.logos.com/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=1199334&Quote=False. You can't say this is from the resource.
Those are not suggestions for the searching the surface text. Note the icon to the left of the suggestion. Those are word senses, and are valid suggestions that are being correctly localized in the UI language.
I believe the two cases I created plus the extra explanations cover all the issues you are seeing.
And my apologies for hijacking Mark's thread...
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:MJ. Smith said:
I cooperated but I am very curious as to why you have focused on the autocompleter?
Only that we're less clear about what users want from that feature. It doesn't mean we think it's the most important problem to solve.
I want the ability to turn it off ( and of course on for those that use it) in general settings for basic and bible search. And then when I am doing a search, I want the ability to turn it for those specific instances it might be useful when searching doing a search of non-English resources to complete the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc word.
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
I believe I understand now what you are seeing. This is due to the behavior of the Match All Word Forms option. If you open a Search panel and open the panel menu, you will see that you have selected the option to Match All Word Forms. Uncheck that option. Then you should see the same suggestions in English and German.
Thanks, but I've talked the whole time about the Inline search, and this is not option there. In the inline search (see the images I've posted), there should only come up whats in the actual resource is. Not from another language etc. A French Bible, the words of this Bible. A German Commentary, the words of that commentary etc. With suggestions on the actual resource. At least from the top down. As second if there are fields in the resource, you can put fields. Like <Manuscript> and then if I click on it the manuscript are listed or only the next search is in the manuscript. So I can filter for this "Milestones". For example I type "p" if the manuscript is active, all "P46,.... etc." come up in the suggestions. It should be clear only the <Fields> which is in the actual resource should be listed.
For example: I search for "barr"
Results.
barren
barrenness
etc.
<Footnotes> because there are footnotes, I click on it. And type "T"
Results all with beginning "T" in the footnotes.
Except I want to to further out of the actual resource. Either a button or by search command, which Logos recognize this is now for the whole bunch.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
I used the form and endorse MJ's three initial suggestions.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
It occurs to me, Mark, that a more explicit "search within results" which puts parens around the current search argument and an AND before the new search argument would help people build complex arguments and refine searches/
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Fabian said:
I've talked the whole time about the Inline search, and this is not option there.
Yes, I noticed that. The setting in the search panel's menu is a global setting. Changing it there will affect searches in the inline search.
And yes, before it gets mentioned, we recognize how poor an experience that is.
Fabian said:there should only come up whats in the actual resource is. Not from another language
Please post a screenshot of a suggestion being listed for a term that is not found in the resource. I'm not aware of a situation where that happens.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
Please post a screenshot of a suggestion being listed for a term that is not found in the resource. I'm not aware of a situation where that happens.
Is not the image from NB.Mick, with the "Barren" and "Barriere" as he was in the Inline Search of the ESV this case?
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
It occurs to me, Mark, that a more explicit "search within results" which puts parens around the current search argument and an AND before the new search argument would help people build complex arguments and refine searches/
It could. Thank you.
0 -
Fabian said:
Is not the image from NB.Mick, with the "Barren" and "Barriere" as he was in the Inline Search of the ESV this case?
I assume you are talking about this post.
I attempted to explain this earlier, but I might not have been clear enough.
If you select those suggestions, they will not search for that text in the resource. Instead, they will search for text that has been tagged with those senses ("Barren" and "Barriere"). It is entirely appropriate that these terms show up in German, since the German translation is the correct name for those senses. You can find more details about those senses using the Bible Sense Lexicon tool.
NB.Mick appears to have been confused about this as well.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Bill said:
Thanks for asking Mark.
Option One- I think if we must use complex syntax it should be easier to enter. For me, and I assume for many, the syntax is not understandable, clear or easy to remember, but it is powerful. Can option number two provide that same power?
Option Two- Obviously I would prefer not to have to use complex syntax, However, my concern with option two, if I understand it correctly, is that we may lose the power and flexibility to build our own searches, and be limited to using pre designed canned searches that may not meet our need. Even if we were left with the option of building searches with complex syntax in this option, it would not resolve the issues in option one I pointed out.
Don't know if this makes sense, or is even feasible, but if the program could determine the type of search we are attempting by the words or terms we type, and either enter the proper syntax, or offer a drop down list of workable options, that would help the user by not having to remember which syntax or terms to use or where to place it. Through use, I think it would also become a good training tool for the user.
Conclusion; Keep the power of complex searches, but make the syntax easier to understand, use, and enter, or make the syntax it self less complicated.
Thank you, I hope this is somewhat helpful.
I think Bill has some good suggestions here.
Another option to possibly consider is to make searches similar to Passage Guide. Have a Search Guide with a section for general search, and sections for more complex searches. Might not be feasable, but I like to brainstorm
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:Fabian said:
Is not the image from NB.Mick, with the "Barren" and "Barriere" as he was in the Inline Search of the ESV this case?
I assume you are talking about this post.
I attempted to explain this earlier, but I might not have been clear enough.
If you select those suggestions, they will not search for that text in the resource. Instead, they will search for text that has been tagged with those senses ("Barren" and "Barriere"). It is entirely appropriate that these terms show up in German, since the German translation is the correct name for those senses. You can find more details about those senses using the Bible Sense Lexicon tool.
NB.Mick appears to have been confused about this as well.
Yes, that was I referring.
Thanks for the explanation.
In German it is called "Alle Wortformen berücksichtigen", that doesn't say the actual resource is NOT searched anymore, at least in the same way as it is if unchecked.
In my opinion it make less sense to have the "Alle Wortformen berücksichtigen" then as standard in the INLINE search. I think this should be as a second step, as I tried to say it earlier.
Is there a shortcut to open a "Search panel"?
Next thing
If I open the Calwer Bibellexikon and I choose "Verfasser" means "author" then why the suggestions don't work? And if this work is not prepared for this, then why I can mark to search for "Verfasser". For example "Roos" is one. So I check the box for Verfasser and type "r". Heaven help! There are many words that come up but not "Roos". And then I would like to search in the texts this author wrote. I should then have as second command or search field. Either I or Logos is stupid.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·
0 -
It seems that there are a number of ways to initiate searches including Search Panel, Bible Browser, Factbook, Context Menu, Inline Search and so on.
Is there a compehensive Wiki that lists all search entry points and discusses the advantages of using one over another? I have to assume that there are nuanced differences in what each entry tool might provide in terms of ease of use or quality of search results but am unsophisticated enough to recognize what they might be.
-john
And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers (Mal 4:6a)
0 -
John Connell said:
Is there a compehensive Wiki that lists all search entry points and discusses the advantages of using one over another?
You can see one here for detailed searches
Also here to search for theological topics
And here for an introduction to searches
And here to learn how to use search operators
And here for search help
And here for an example of a search analysis
And here for search fields you can use
And here for a video of search operators
And finally here for how to use search templates to build a search
I am not sure if Faithlife has indicated how many hours of study one must put in to understand it all.
One thing that would be helpful is for the wiki or the Logos search help page to be updated so I don't need to keep all these links in my browser favorites. There's got to be a simpler way to enjoy the powerful benefits of the Logos search engine.
Mark, I am glad they have put you on this task. I know there are complications beyond what the average user is able to understand. Perhaps you are right to focus on the automatic search. Perhaps as well, a help file can be easily accessible to make all these search options easy to understand so we can actually do searches using these various operators.
0 -
I want all ways of initiating and carrying out all kinds of searches in all Faithlife apps to finally be fully documented, including all settings and search syntax, within a single free Help resource within Logos/Verbum. And then I want that Logos Research Edition resource to be pro-actively kept consistently up to date by Faithlife.
You want to make search easier? Do that.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
I would really like search to be more like Google search, where it suggest alternative sesrches. Right now it is more like Amazon - it only searches exactly what you type; misspell something and it has no idea what I want to find.
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0
