Logos Lacks Links, again and again and again

I get annoyed with this too. Did you check the bibliography to verify that the Logos edition is the same edition as cited in the bibliography?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1214883#Comment_1214883

I get annoyed with this too. Did you check the bibliography to verify that the Logos edition is the same edition as cited in the bibliography?

Yes, only one edition of the book, and I found the quotation easily enough by typing in the page number. Logos is supposed to save me that. There's really no excuse this time.

Roughly half the citations in this book seem to be unlinked, although I can't verify that all of them are available in Logos. They don't link Charles Hodge! That's big--that was one of the first works they linked up in their woefully-incomplete-at-release Theology Guide. I remember having that book in the first version of Logos I bought in the last century, whatever it was that came before Libronix...

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1214883#Comment_1214883

I get annoyed with this too.

Hear! Hear!

Doc B

you never know what you are getting until you purchase it.

I copied the link to this thread to the product page for the book so (hopefully) others don't get the same disappointing surprise.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1215034#Comment_1215034

My apologies. We definitely missed the Sonderegger references. We will get those updated.

As for Hodge, it appears to be a different edition.

We'll do an audit of other references as well.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1215098#Comment_1215098

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1215098#Comment_1215098

My apologies. We definitely missed the Sonderegger references. We will get those updated.

As for Hodge, it appears to be a different edition.

We'll do an audit of other references as well.

Thanks for the response, though I'm likely to be done with my read-through before you push out an update.

Also check the refs. to Barth's Romans. It's the same edition as you published earlier this year.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217957#Comment_1217957

Yet another example from The Nonviolent Atonement, published in Logos this year. It cites Yoder's Politics of Jesus, published in Logos not-this-year, and no links were created:

If I had to describe Logos's linking, I would use the words "random" and "capricious." I've said it before, and it looks like I will continue to do so: You never know if you're going to get linking until you buy the book and look inside. Sometimes if you squint you can make sense of the policy ("Well, it's an identical reprint with the same page numbers & everything, but not the same original publisher, so we're not linking it") This isn't one of those cases.

Logos 10 will roll out soon, and we'll all pay money for new datasets for obscure searches, but this fundamental problem in quality control will continue to be addressed only half-heartedly.

EDIT: Here's the work: https://www.logos.com/product/195058/the-nonviolent-atonement-2nd-ed

Scanning through the pages, almost nothing in the footnotes is linked. Many of the titles aren't in FL's catalogue, but it doesn't look like even an attempt was made to link those that are.

NB.Mick

EDIT: Here's the work: https://www.logos.com/product/195058/the-nonviolent-atonement-2nd-ed

Scanning through the pages, almost nothing in the footnotes is linked. Many of the titles aren't in FL's catalogue, but it doesn't look like even an attempt was made to link those that are.

This is a Logos Reader Edition, which means FL won't put in the links to other books as we expect from Logos Research Editions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217967#Comment_1217967

This is a Logos Reader Edition

Good point, no offense to Sean. But the 'reader edition' idea needs explanation on product pages more than a generic description. And I doubt FL would identify 'why'. The Catholic Encylopedia (old one) is a reader edition ... I'm guessing to its age?

A more recent example, Jodi Magness's 2nd ed of DSS archaeology is a 'reader edition'. The 1st edition product page doesn't say, but clicking thru my own copy, it looks pretty 'research edition' (active links). Would I buy her new one? Nope. Would I know not to? Nope (I don't closely examine; I should I guess). But then maybe FL had a reason ... who knows?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217992#Comment_1217992

But then maybe FL had a reason ... who knows?

I don't know the answer to "who knows" but the first thing I woud check is "was the 1st edition produced before the distinction between research/reader editions was made?"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217998#Comment_1217998

I don't know the answer to "who knows" but the first thing I woud check is "was the 1st edition produced before the distinction between research/reader editions was made?"

Certainly, but not quite the point. If an older edition is linked, and a new one isn't, I'd forego any update purchase. Absent knowing why.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217992#Comment_1217992

Good point, no offense to Sean. But the 'reader edition' idea needs explanation on product pages more than a generic description. And I doubt FL would identify 'why'. The Catholic Encylopedia (old one) is a reader edition ... I'm guessing to its age?

As best I can determine, Faithlife doesn't say more about what is missing from Logos Reader Editions because the tagging omitted varies from one Reader Edition to another.

If I recall correctly, the Catholic Encyclopedia has no <date> tags.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217967#Comment_1217967

This is a Logos Reader Edition, which means FL won't put in the links to other books as we expect from Logos Research Editions.

Ah I knew there was one last thing I forgot to check before ranting! Although there are some links to resources with standard, non-page number references (e.g., Cur Deus Homo).

We really should make a master list of "reasons why you shouldn't expect to get links." (It won't be a short one.)

Dave Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218028#Comment_1218028

As best I can determine, Faithlife doesn't say more about what is missing from Logos Reader Editions because the tagging omitted varies from one Reader Edition to another.

I would love for the Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions. It would be a win/win for everyone.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218101#Comment_1218101

Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions

Community tags are a step in this direction but I don't think they've been widely adopted.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218066#Comment_1218066

We really should make a master list of "reasons why you shouldn't expect to get links." (It won't be a short one.)

Prove it. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218154#Comment_1218154

We really should make a master list of "reasons why you shouldn't expect to get links." (It won't be a short one.)

Prove it.

Oh I will some day, when I have more time. [:P]

For another example of capricious lack of links, see Rosie's recent thread: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/209140.aspx

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218177#Comment_1218177

We really should make a master list of "reasons why you shouldn't expect to get links." (It won't be a short one.)

I have my list of one: I should not expect whole classes of links because I lack sufficient information on which to build an accurate prediction as I do not know when the resource was tagged under what guidelines and which resources referenced were matched by resources currently indexed with appropriate indices together with unavoidable human error.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218101#Comment_1218101

I would love for the Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions. It would be a win/win for everyone.

+1 (and not only the Reader Editions)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218214#Comment_1218214

I would love for the Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions. It would be a win/win for everyone.

+1 (and not only the Reader Editions)

I would do it for Reader Editions as they are what they are advertised as.

For Research editions I would do it only for compensation (e.g., logos.com credit) as FaithLife has already been paid to do it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218225#Comment_1218225

I would do it for Reader Editions as they are what they are advertised as.

Then, they'd do more Reader Editions ... kind of like they point customers to the forums for support.

Today I just received the title, Trinitarian Dogmatics, published in 2022, a Logos Research Edition.

An update of this came through today, fixing at least the Sonderegger and Barth Romans links. Thanks for attending to this, but please try to do better with your quality control.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218214#Comment_1218214

I would love for the Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions. It would be a win/win for everyone.

+1 (and not only the Reader Editions)

Community tags gives you the opportunity ... have you tried it?

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1218186#Comment_1218186

We really should make a master list of "reasons why you shouldn't expect to get links." (It won't be a short one.)

I have my list of one: I should not expect whole classes of links because I lack sufficient information on which to build an accurate prediction as I do not know when the resource was tagged under what guidelines and which resources referenced were matched by resources currently indexed with appropriate indices together with unavoidable human error.

Wasn't there some sort of automated tagging scheme for a while? It could be tied back to that.

Armin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1221072#Comment_1221072

I also get annoyed by the missing links. I submitted (as typos) numerous links or corrections of links but am not sure if they ever get fixed.

Another thing that I recently noticed are links from resources to BibleGateWay. For instance, instead of getting my to John 13:23-26 in Logos, I have a link to https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13%3A23-26&version=NIV. Here is the resource:

LLS:LFGDBDNCHRST
2021-06-17T17:43:50Z
LFGDBDNCHRST.logos4

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1220608#Comment_1220608

I would love for the Logos community to be able to crowd source the linking in Logos Reader Editions. It would be a win/win for everyone.

+1 (and not only the Reader Editions)

Community tags gives you the opportunity ... have you tried it?

In the past I have used Community Notes. I don't see Community Tags giving me the opportunity at all, because they restrict input to concepts, topics and whatever things FL has prepopulated in their tags database - no way to include self-created text (including ref.ly-links) I have seen. Did I miss something?

Matt Hamrick

Back in 2014 to 2016 I mentioned this exact point. Nobody listened nor cared. So, I stopped.

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1217967#Comment_1217967

This is a Logos Reader Edition, which means FL won't put in the links to other books as we expect from Logos Research Editions.

The decision to distinguish between the Reader Edition and Logos Research Edition is anyway rubbish. Only a half brained manager can came to such an output. The reason to have it in Logos IS the linking and search capabilities. Without this, it doesn't make sense to put any effort to create a module.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1221301#Comment_1221301

The reason to have it in Logos IS the linking and search capabilities.

I understand your frustration, but I do not agree... or at least I don't agree with what I <think> you are saying.

The two primary reasons I want my books in Logos are 1) to have all my books together and 2) to be able to search my library. If I remember a quote, I can type in a snippet and search ALL of my books. That does not require any tagging at all.

The ability to click on a citation in a footnote and go to the original source is nice... very nice... very helpful. I'm all for it. However, not having that ability won't prevent me from buying the book in Logos. Buying the book on Amazon won't fix your issue, and would eliminate the advantages in my two primary reasons for buying books in Logos.

Why have a "reader" instead of a "research" edition? Two good reasons I can think of: 1) time to production and 2) cost to the user. If a book wouldn't benefit as much from a "research edition treatment" and can be made available more quickly and cost effectively, I am all for it.

Matt Hamrick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1221301#Comment_1221301

This is a Logos Reader Edition, which means FL won't put in the links to other books as we expect from Logos Research Editions.

The decision to distinguish between the Reader Edition and Logos Research Edition is anyway rubbish. Only a half brained manager can came to such an output. The reason to have it in Logos IS the linking and search capabilities. Without this, it doesn't make sense to put any effort to create a module.

My complaint back in time was about Lexham Products specifically. At the time I realized while linking is great it's not necessary because if you own the book just go open and go to the page number cited and boom. It's not rocket science.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1221307#Comment_1221307

Why have a "reader" instead of a "research" edition? Two good reasons I can think of: 1) time to production and 2) cost to the user. If a book wouldn't benefit as much from a "research edition treatment" and can be made available more quickly and cost effectively, I am all for it.

I don't doubt 'Reader Editions' .... Kindle can really be a headache and any notes are .... well, not in Logos.

But that said, just yesterday, I was in Patrologia (PseudoDionesius I think) ... it's a research edition (good), even morphed (good). And Logos landed me there on a right-click (good). But the landing site was in the index, and the index was plain-Jane. Didn't even bother to cross-ref to the volume I was in.

I just wish they'd either do a better QA job, or warn users that they sort of skipped this and that. An almost-research-edition, let's say.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1221310#Comment_1221310

But that said, just yesterday, I was in Patrologia (PseudoDionesius I think) ... it's a research edition (good), even morphed (good). And Logos landed me there on a right-click (good). But the landing site was in the index, and the index was plain-Jane. Didn't even bother to cross-ref to the volume I was in.

What resource had the bad link?