BUG or inconsistency I don't like in hover on Factbook tags - FL tagging or user tagging

Metzger, John B. Discovering the Mystery of the Unity of God: A Theological Study on the Plurality and Tri-Unity of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2010. behaves as I expect. The word is tagged and displays on hover.

BUG: Moreau, A. Scott, Harold Netland, and Charles van Engen. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books; A. Scott Moreau, 2000. has a normal FL tag, the show Factbook tags option is on, but no underlining or hover behavior displays.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Andrew Batishko

BUG: Moreau, A. Scott, Harold Netland, and Charles van Engen. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books; A. Scott Moreau, 2000. has a normal FL tag, the show Factbook tags option is on, but no underlining or hover behavior displays.

That's not actually what is happening here. If you right click on other words in that article, you will see that they all show "Dispensationalism" in the context menu. This and the fact that the reference shows up in the list above the Headword are clues that this is a milestone reference, not a tag. Because there is no Factbook tagging of any kind here, there is no underlining or hover behavior.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248928#Comment_1248928

this is a milestone reference,

I'm confused - I thought the order was Selection, Milestone reference, horizontal line. You're saying that Milestone references can appear BELOW the horizontal line?

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248967#Comment_1248967

I'm confused - I thought the order was Selection, Milestone reference, horizontal line. You're saying that Milestone references can appear BELOW the horizontal line?

You are correct about where milestones appear. In your screenshot there is no horizontal line because everything other than selection is a milestone (the topic and the headword).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248982#Comment_1248982

One more question - why can't I use milestone with headword, if headword is a milestone reference? Note that I can with topic.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248987#Comment_1248987

why can't I use milestone with headword, if headword is a milestone reference? Note that I can with topic.

That probably would make sense. I'll pass that along to the search team.

Mark Barnes (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1248987#Comment_1248987

One more question - why can't I use milestone with headword, if headword is a milestone reference? Note that I can with topic.

We treat these differently because all headwords are milestones, but not all topics are milestones. Therefore we need to specify milestone with topic, but we don't need to with headwords. We therefore prefer the shorter syntax, especially as most users don't know that all headwords are milestones.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249036#Comment_1249036

We therefore prefer the shorter syntax, especially as most users don't know that all headwords are milestones.

It is the inconsistency that the preference for shorter syntax INSTEAD OF the full consistent syntax that makes me dislike parts of the new syntax. I have no objections to the shorter syntax working but strongly object to the fuller syntax failing. Being able to prefix with milestone: should be a reliable text for whether or not an element is a milestone. Instead users are left never knowing all headwords are milestones ... something I discovered only recently.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249056#Comment_1249056

but strongly object to the fuller syntax failing.

This makes sense to me.

Or, Logos/Verbum could offer an autocorrect/search suggestion, like it often does for L9 search syntax.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249071#Comment_1249071

but strongly object to the fuller syntax failing.

This makes sense to me.

Or, Logos/Verbum could offer an autocorrect/search suggestion, like it often does for L9 search syntax.

This distinction is continued from Logos 9. Headword: is a peculiar beast because it depends on the exact article name in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or concordance and yes, lexicons as well. Try headword:ἄνθρωπος (which will also work in some Grammars). It also finds Philanthropy in one resource because it is listed as an Alias (together with other aliases). If you don't get the name right you won't get a specific article e.g. headword:”Salvation, nature of” is distinct from headword:”Salvation” in the same resource (Dictionary of Bible Themes)! But milestone:topic:Salvation will include 6 of these "salvation" articles. Now, isn't that a peculiar beast[H]

I don't mind an apparent inconsistency in syntax, and I won't object if you want milestone: as an option (it will probably confuse people, though).