How would you improve our search helps?

I am glad Search is being looked into!!!

I for one, seem to have lots of problems using Logos Search.. I'll admit it's me... but I find Search to be one of the most complicated of all Logos functions... I often go to WordSearch... or Google  and search for things...  

I have just (about 2 weeks now) started working with search templates ... trying to get search to work for me. But I see from the screen shot you posted... that my screen is different..  like ... I don't have all the templates that you do... which causes me to wonder... do I have to buy some "feature" or something that would give me more templates in Search? I would think Search would be the same for everyone from basic to most advance Logos packages....

As a theologian, my use of searches in Logos (as well as my view of them) is somewhat different. I generally don’t use super-complicated Bible searches and question the value of some of them (e.g., find every verse where the 5th character is yod that also contains an interrogative or some such). Sorry, but I don’t see what things like that are trying to accomplish.

I do try to use the Bible Browser frequently. I’m not always sure what is the best category or place to look for what I’m trying to find. For example, if I want to do searches for Bible references to “God the Father,” do I use the entry under senses (it only shows 8 uses) or preaching themes or topics or figurative language or what? I think Bible browser itself needs a detailed help file.

But as a theologian, I’m more often trying to search the 5,000+ non-Bible books in my library. I don’t know how to do much with them besides AND and OR operations. I don’t understand the different categories of headings or milestones or whatever I can use to limit searches. Can I limit a search so that it shows results that come only in the same paragraph or chapter? Can I limit a search to a specific author--not just searching in books by a specific author, but journal articles or dictionary entries or essays in multi-author works? Can I limit a search to just dictionaries and encyclopedias without creating a collection? I’m clueless as to what all I can do with these books in search and fear I’m missing out on a lot. I’d like to see templates that show every field that I can use in different kinds of books with examples.
There needs to be an extensive help file on searching non-Bible books.

Maybe there already is and I’m just looking in the wrong place, but I can’t find it.

Thanks Graham.   Yep.... one of these days I will learn this search things..... I will... I really will! 

And Sean --- Good point!  I do want a search that will search through every resource I have to find the information I am looking for. 

The following are just examples.....

Maybe something like....  [Author: Thomas B. Warren  ....  Search: Holy Spirit]  ----- then it would search all the resources I have by Thomas B Warren to find anything about the Holy Spirit. 

Or ....  [ Resource: 1 Chronicles .... Search: two wives ] ----- then it would search every resource that is or has 1 Chronicles references to "two wives" , Dictionaries, monograph, articles, etc. Anything in my library. (I actually did a search about this recently... but I went to WordSearch.... ). 

And probably... these can be done now... and I just don't know the hieroglyphics of how to do it.  

After me starting to use them and learning how to fully use them....I think Templates inb Search will work great for me. I am seeing hope for me... [8-|]

Graham Criddle said:

Your screenshot is from a Basic Search  whereas Mark's is from a Bible Search

In the vocab in my head, a basic search INCLUDES a Bible search. because of my definition of basic = [includes] everything, all.

scooter said:

In the vocab in my head, a basic search INCLUDES a Bible search. because of my definition of basic = [includes] everything, all.

I have long felt that "Basic" Search should have been called "General" Search instead.

MJ. Smith said:

scooter said:

because of my definition of basic = [includes] everything, all.

Fascinating, I think of basic = stripped down to essentials, minimal. A great example of the difficulties Logos has in labeling the interface.

I wonder if MJ would feel the same if had come from WordSearch???  hmmmm.... [8-|]

I'd assume Basic vs Bible is from earlier software versions. 'Users' like continuity.

In Libronix, 'Basic' was basic barebones, and  'Bible' was Bibles.

Then you had your Bible Speed Search, which is most akin to 'Find' in Logos.

Finally, you had your 'Advanced Search'  (plus BDAG search).

They largely held onto the morph search and visual syntax search, but dumped the graphical query.

PL said:

The brackets are truly the biggest barrier.

E.g. I just used the search template "One person asks another person a question." I typed in Jesus and Peter. It generates this search query with the different types of brackets:

{Speaker <Person Jesus>} INTERSECTS {Label Question} INTERSECTS {Addressee <Person Peter>}

Honestly, if the search syntax for this were like the following, it would have been bearable and very learnable and understandable (similar to the filtering syntax used in the Library pane):

speaker:jesus type:question addressee:peter

Why can't it be like this? Why do we have all these different shapes and levels of brackets, all nested in different ways, and why do we have to use INTERSECTS all the time (instead of the more common AND)?

These are some of the reasons why the search engine /syntax is so hard to learn. This syntax is psychologically very intimidating to regular users.

Amen and AMEN!

And Dave... thank you for clearing my post up!

Dave Hooton said:

Beloved Amodeo said:

• Search is fundamental to Logos; it should be fun and educational to interact with.
• As of now Bible Browser is the best example in Logos of the above principle.
• The steps necessary to arrive at the desired result should be easy to recall.
• I think others have pointed this out, but the need for bracketing and such should be hidden.
• Boolean operators should be suggested or supplied by search.

I wonder how we can apply these criteria to Graham's response to the query put forward by xnman.

Graham Criddle said:

I know you were just giving a couple of examples but thought it might be useful to think about how you can search for these in Logos

xnman said:

     Or ....  [ Resource: 1 Chronicles .... Search: two wives ] ----- then it would search every resource that is or has 1 Chronicles references to "two wives" , Dictionaries, monograph, articles, etc. Anything in my library. ...

Presumably in this case, you would like the mention of 1 Chronicles to be "near" the mention of "two wives"
For this you could use the search string "two wives" NEAR <1 Chron> (with the angle brackets allowing the reference to be given in a variety of ways and for it still to match

• Graham assumed that the references to 1 Chronicles  would have to be close to the mention of  "two wives"
•  so he understands that proximity is relevant to that solution and he had a search operator in mind (he used the word "near"). Would you have understood that from the original request? Would you have framed the request differently?
• xnman understood that he was searching for a phrase, so he used the expression "two wives".
• the next part is how to express 1 Chronicles. Should your query be:
• "two wives" near 1 Chronicles  and let Search figure out the rest without additional bracketing?
  
• Search may then ask: Did you mean "two wives" NEAR <1 Chronicles> ?
• You then hit Enter and are pleasantly surprised with the results! You learn that near has to be uppercase and that the bible reference has to be bracketed because "1 Chronicles" would look for that exact phrase and you would end up with a couple of results instead of a  hundred or so. And current Search would look for 1 AND Chronicles!
• Search could also have suggested "two wives" NEAR <Bible ~1 Chronicles>  --> How would you react to that?
• it gives the same results but is more precise in recognizing that 1 Chronicles is a Bible reference.
• the ~ signifies bible references like 1 Chron 4:5 with chapter and/or verse, but it can be omitted.
• Are you satisfied with a hundred results, or is that too much?  You might try "two wives" NEAR <1 Chronicles 4:5> as that is the exact reference in the bible and it does narrow the results.
• If your original query had been "two wives" 1 Chronicles would you have been satisfied with "two wives" AND <1 Chronicles> because "Boolean operators should be suggested or supplied..."?
• There is another dimension to this query because you could have searched for "two wives" as follows:
• 
• i.e. search that passage in a collection of your Commentaries.
  

• One of the primary goals of the GUI is to return relevant data using a method that is intuitive and requires limited steps.
• Towards that end the student should learn the concept of a proximity search as you have mentioned, but...
• In addition the effects of other Boolean operators should be explored, e.g., WITHIN, etc. 
• It would be desirable for the GUI to supply results for the range of choices for the various operator options. Then the student would select the most applicable result. For instance NEAR 79,000 results in 1,000 resources vs. WITHIN 28 results in 5 resources and so on.
• I know I've not been exhaustive with my comments, but I expect the experts will see these observations and interpret them meaningfully and logically

PL said:

I have long felt that "Basic" Search should have been called "General" Search instead.

The German interface has "Library" ("Bibliothek") search ... and I struggled at first to find the "Basic" search button  in the row of search settings.[;)]

I suppose the terminology "Basic" is used to indicate a search for "basic plain words/expressions", i.e. without special formats, reference, language, etc. involved ?

MJ. Smith said:

The only reason I went back to respond to this post is to point out that users must have reasonable expectations

Thank you, MJ, for revisiting this string.  

Knowledge level of computers + searches:

Some know a lot......Some know medium-ish...... Some know little.

I know little.  I do not like computer-choice complexity.

But, I never know re Searches if Logos could invent a better set-up [due to my lack of knowledge].

Dave, above, showed the complexity of possibility.

I have always wondered if FL could make searches better.  Did they max their effort, or move on to other projects?

After Mark's efforts, I will know FL did their very best in this area.  Then it will be up to me to learn  {  (  [  INTERSECTS  ]  )  }.

Thank you for all of your responses and thank you Mark for starting this thread and listening to users' feedback.

Wolfgang, I think "Library Search" is a much better name than "Basic Search" or "General Search"!

Mark and MJ, thanks explaining the difference between AND and INTERSECTS. Now I understand (I think). Maybe it's just the very technical/mathematical-sounding name of INTERSECTS that put me off from trying it since it was introduced. Maybe something like ALSO might be a more user-friendly term? But obviously it's too late to change that after so many years in use.

MJ, thanks for your detailed comments. Unfortunately most of them flew above my head. I guess the challenge for Mark and for FL is to balance the needs for expert users like MJ and others on the one hand, and average/novice users like xnman and myself on the other hand.

I sincerely hope that FL can hear and respond to the voices of those of us who are average/novice users. I have a feeling that this group constitutes the vast majority of Logos/Verbum users.

I support replacing the confusing term "Basic Search" with the term "General Search".

I also support DOCUMENTING SEARCH PROPERLY within the program. Please forgive my yelling. And then vote for documenting Search properly, here.

PL said:

Mark and MJ, thanks explaining the difference between AND and INTERSECTS. Now I understand (I think). Maybe it's just the very technical/mathematical-sounding name of INTERSECTS that put me off from trying it since it was introduced. Maybe something like ALSO might be a more user-friendly term? But obviously it's too late to change that after so many years in use.

Would you prefer OVERLAPS?

xnman said:

Well... for what it's worth....   I actually used search today and actually found what I was looking for...   Maybe there's hope for me yet...

xnman said:

I don't want to have to "study" search each time I go to use it or do a different kind of search ... because that changes my focus to learning search instead of Bible study... search should be something that helps.... not slows me down... I just don't see that happening a lot with the current search in Logos.

I get that. With some things we do, we expect (and perhaps want) to have to learn how to do them well, but other things, we want to be nice and simple--like using a microwave to reheat leftovers.

xnman said:

I look forward to a better search in Logos.   

Me too.