Replace the stupid "Chapter" with the actual book

Fabian

Hello

I explain with the ESV and a PB.

ESV only has this stupid "Chapter" entry.

This is really USELESS. Where I am? Mark, Gen, Luke, Macc, THis is nonsense on a high level.

My PB's has a chapter title where you actually know where you are.

Please replace in Bibles the stupid "chapter" with the actual book. Maybe in other recourses are this also an issue.

This would make Logos better.

Thanks

Fabian

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Doc B

stupid USELESS nonsense

A little basic civility would go a long way. Had you simply left out the pejorative, everyone would have been on your side. By declining basic civility, now those same readers find you obstreperous (at best).

If you want something from someone, being nasty to them is your least effective approach, which is the one you've taken. Your most effective remedy would be to delete this thread and replace it with the exact same content minus the pejoratives and superlatives.

MJ. Smith

The TofC is built automatically from the titles used by the publisher who provides the electronic file.

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1240322#Comment_1240322

The TofC is built automatically from the titles used by the publisher who provides the electronic file.

I don't think you are correct. The chapter, chapter chapter thing is a decision from Logos and can be changed. See the new free Bibles. A lot are from the eBible resource and not directly form the publisher.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259117#Comment_1259117

You can’t use these new bibles as the basis to say MJ is wrong. Faithlife built them from the files provided by a third party.

Yes in theory they could put there whatever they wanted but the Faithlife approach and official word from them is they publish what the files as provided to them. Any changes to the text including typos (unless it’s a result of FL converting the file) are not made without the publisher providing a new updated file.

As users we may find that stance one we wish they were a little more flexible but they are drawing a clear indisputable line in the sand so that no one can accuse them of changing the text.

If you have evidence of FL publishing text different to what they publisher provided them with that would be interesting to know about.

The TofC is built automatically from the titles used by the publisher who provides the electronic file.

I don't think you are correct. The chapter, chapter chapter thing is a decision from Logos and can be changed. See the new free Bibles. A lot are from the eBible resource and not directly form the publisher.

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259121#Comment_1259121

In the file browser. Logos can write what they want. This is not altering the text! As soon I say something the Logos apologetics stands in the first raw to protect their lovely from any good choices in the right direction.

I guess also you are wrong. I don't see in the print Bibles. Chapter 2, Chapter 3, etc. arent't there, but only 2, 3 or sometimes the chapter number is bigger than the verse number. Called Initial in German.

Really, best would be a content developer would chime in as some people give unqualified speeches here.

My example was the ESV. They have the chapter, chapter, chapter. Go online search for ESV images and you'll see no chapter, chapter at all. Only the chapter number as initial. So it would be great if Logos change the content in the browser from chapter to the actual book. This would help me and you. No need to advocate for Logos. Really not.

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1240287#Comment_1240287

stupid USELESS nonsense

A little basic civility would go a long way. Had you simply left out the pejorative, everyone would have been on your side. By declining basic civility, now those same readers find you obstreperous (at best).

If you want something from someone, being nasty to them is your least effective approach, which is the one you've taken. Your most effective remedy would be to delete this thread and replace it with the exact same content minus the pejoratives and superlatives.

I'm not a white liar American. I'm from central Europe. If something is stupid, we call them stupid. Is something USELESS, we call them useless. Is something nonsense, we call them nonsense. We say at it is. We don't make white lies here in central Europe.

White lies doesn't help finally anyone. O.K. it helps to feel better, but the Bible software would be better if it only feels better. We have to say as it is, so the developer can go in action and create a better product. Only to say it's AAWSOME, it's GREEAAT etc. doesn't help at the end.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259143#Comment_1259143

Fabian, your suggestion is appropriate and, I believe, everyone would support the change. But there are details of production and contracts to which we are not privy. To act as if we do is, itself, a kind of lie. Your final outburst about geographic groups was sufficiently outrageous for me to report you language as abuse. I do not particularly expect them to take any action beyond, perhaps, warning you.

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259178#Comment_1259178

But there are details of production and contracts to which we are not privy.

This is what I said. So why do and the other person gave an answer you are not involved.

To act as if we do is, itself, a kind of lie.

No, you misunderstand me here.The opposite. Both of you have written in a way it is clear you aren't part of the developer team. So why you answered out of the blue? So no lie from my side.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259186#Comment_1259186

Both of you have written in a way it is clear you aren't part of the developer team.

The forums are peer-to-peer forums, not a way to converse with the developers.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259178#Comment_1259178

Fabian.... I understand your point of view.... As I can say, been there done that. But this forum is "supposedly" a Christian forum.... as such the "unwritten" rules of being and acting like a Christian is expected by all.

I don't care what part of the country you come from, but if you are a Christian, you are expected to act like such on here.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,” - Gal 5:22.

And don't get me wrong.... the easiest thing to do is to verbally rip somone's head off... and as long as you do it with kindness and longsuffering... it'll probably pass. [8-|]

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259191#Comment_1259191

Both of you have written in a way it is clear you aren't part of the developer team.

The forums are peer-to-peer forums, not a way to converse with the developers.

So the suggestion forum is nearly useless if they don't interact. Not? Why does it then exist?

Fabian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259227#Comment_1259227

Fabian.... I understand your point of view.... As I can say, been there done that. But this forum is "supposedly" a Christian forum.... as such the "unwritten" rules of being and acting like a Christian is expected by all.

I don't care what part of the country you come from, but if you are a Christian, you are expected to act like such on here.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,” - Gal 5:22.

And don't get me wrong.... the easiest thing to do is to verbally rip somone's head off... and as long as you do it with kindness and longsuffering... it'll probably pass.

It's funny as soon as someone criticize their beloved one, they get the Beissreflex. Not only by me, I saw this on other threads too. They try to silence everyone who is not happy with products of Faithlife. I haven't attacked the developers. Only a useless decision of them, which would with a little change be much more useful for us all. And then they made an out of the blue "facts" as reason, why it is as it is.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259231#Comment_1259231

So the suggestion forum is nearly useless if they don't interact. Not? Why does it then exist?

For suggestions, the feedback site is Roadmap | Faithlife; for suggestions the forum is used to garner support for a suggestion and/or to find if there is a way to achieve what one wants already. The forums are for asking "how to" questions, reporting bugs in software and resources, asking what resources FL has on a topic, what the difference between two resources is . . .

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259235#Comment_1259235

with a little change

Unfortunately, it is not a little change to the software code. Currently, the table of contents is extracted from the contents of the book. Faithlife cannot change the content of the book so it would have to build a table of contents externally. Displaying the TOC from a new external source rather than extracting it from the book itself is a significant project.

It's funny as soon as someone criticize their beloved one, they get the Beissreflex. Not only by me, I saw this on other threads too. They try to silence everyone who is not happy with products of Faithlife.

This is untrue although you are not the first to make the charge. Trying to keep a non-"in your living room" poster on track, trying to insert factual information into the thread, or tamp down unrealistic expectation is not being a toady to Faithlife. But you must also note that no one disagreed with your request as one that could be helpful; they simply shared their knowledge as to why it might not happen. Had it appeared that you had the knowledge, they would have been less likely to share.

Note 1: re: the odd phrasing to describe the original poster taken from the forum guidelines [quote]

Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.

Note 2: I try to follow Grice's rules of conversation

Cooperative Principle: "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged." (Grice 1989: 26).

The conversational maxims can be thought of as precisifications of the cooperative principle that deal specifically with communication.

Maxim of Quantity: Information

Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxim of Quality: Truth

Do not say what you believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of Relation: Relevance

Be relevant.

Maxim of Manner: Clarity ("be perspicuous")

Avoid obscurity of expression.

Avoid ambiguity.

Be brief (avoid prolixity).

Be orderly.

Note 3: I am from a Finnish community in the Pacific Northwest - a part of the country considered overly polite by other parts of the country. Therefore, it is safe to expect me to be less tolerant of insults to other forum members, than many other forum members would be. I do, however, enjoy tongue-in-check hyperbole.