Data issue: Logos (esp. Mark Branes) we have a problem re: Bible outline browser

See the first post (2020) and post today ( 24.17.106.110) in Separate Outlines for POSB - Logos Forums - all of which is a discussion of an inadequacy in Logos that is provided by other Bible software. However, there is a major problem with the discussion. Logos does have the feature and has had since Logos 6. So Logos has two major issues:

The fact that the data is easily available in Logos is not known to the users
The fact that the data is woefully incomplete limits its usefulness

I have gone so far as to have employee A give me the format for updating with additional data only to have employee B refuse to use it. Feedback certainly has shown an interest in getting the appropriate data into the tool and a modification to the tool:

This seems like Logos built a decent tool, seeded it with the easiest outlines (least useful) and lost interest in using the most detailed outlines in the resource, outlines that are broken into pieces and spread throughout a resource, and outlines in new resources. As for myself, I am getting very tired of incomplete tools.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Mark Barnes (Logos)

Thanks for bringing this up, MJ.

Coincidentally, in a recent internal document, I used the Bible Outline Browser as an example of a potentially useful tool that isn't delivering on its promise. So I mostly agree with your analysis.

Do you think we should "fix" the Bible Outline Browser or start again? Logos 6 was a very long time ago.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287439#Comment_1287439

Do you think we should "fix" the Bible Outline Browser or start again?

I like both views provided by the Bible Outline Browser and would hate to lose either. But I suspect it was written with an architecture that didn't emphasize reusable code ...so I'd assume a rewrite would be cost effective if viewed in the long run. A rewrite should allow for text wrap to make it more useful beside a Bible; make it available as a linked set; make the items in the compare view selectable. One idea I would toss around would be the possibility of, in a rewrite, making the tool more generic so that other structures e.g. inclusio, sortie, and chiasm could also be viewed in it.

Picking up on DMB below: having pericopes and outlines available in the left side panel of Bibles would be a useful additional feature.

For those unfamiliar with the tool:

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287440#Comment_1287440

Well, that one went right over my head.

I have a fairly small Logos/Verbum ... maybe $50K or so. I couldn't find anything like that in the Tools, Documents, etc. Did find it in the library. It had something from NJB and John 3:16. Not sure what either one of those 2 pieces of info are supposed to do.

That was about as far as I could figure, after maybe 30 minutes.

I would have expected it as an alternative in the Bible left-panel (TOC, etc). Along with pericopes. Bible Browser. And so on. Bibles.

Without speaking to fancying it up. UI.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287445#Comment_1287445

As per DMB's reasonable expectations please vote for Navigational panel on left - outline and pericopes | Logos I need to learn from Rosie how to market good ideas.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287453#Comment_1287453

I use the Bible Browser and like it. I do think it could be improved particularly with the ability to Link to my bible.

I do find the Bible Browser to be a bit shallow sometimes. By that I mean ... BB has topics that appear to be subjective and not objective. Some of the topics might apply to someone like Catholics (for example only) but not to me which is not Catholic.

To get around that... maybe something along these lines.... if possible... maybe have a dataset (i.e. Topic Chapter Verses )created by me (the user) so that I can enter topics and chapter-verse and that be incorporated (read) into Bible Browser. I realize it would have to be re-indexed ever so often, but I think it would be of help. To me, this is more of an objective approach for everyone.

Just my opinion.... not meant for argument. [8-|]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287471#Comment_1287471

I use the Bible Browser and like it. I do think it could be improved particularly with the ability to Link to my bible.

MJ’s thread is about the Bible Outline Browser - a different tool.

I recommend starting a new thread to suggest ways in which the Bible Browser Tool could be enhanced / strengthened.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287453#Comment_1287453

As per DMB's reasonable expectations please vote for Navigational panel on left - outline and pericopes | Logos I need to learn from Rosie how to market good ideas.

I appreciate your feedbear entry ... although in the tradition of Logos books, feedbear reminds me of Mot's tremendous hunger (I always thought early accounts of death were so descriptive).

As much as I enjoyed Libby, and I got her near her Mot-ly end, I could see that the UI was a stack of new features in menus, willy-nilly and not integrated.

Logos is now in the Libby-tradition, stuff all over the place. I still don't understand why they don't organize the right-click, so never-use need not delay the slow load time.

But I'm guessing Bellingham is just trying to avoid Mot; its hey-day is in the past (but not Mot; hungry as ever).

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287475#Comment_1287475

I use the Bible Browser and like it. I do think it could be improved particularly with the ability to Link to my bible.

MJ’s thread is about the Bible Outline Browser - a different tool.

I recommend starting a new thread to suggest ways in which the Bible Browser Tool could be enhanced / strengthened.

My bad. I was talking about the Bible Outline Browser but referenced the Bible Browser. First mistake I've made in the last 5 minutes. Sorry.

Edit: I don't use the Bible Browser.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287545#Comment_1287545

My bad. I was talking about the Bible Outline Browser but referenced the Bible Browser.

In which case I'm afraid I don't understand the issue you are having with it. Your comments seemed to "fit" the Bible Browser more closely than the Bible Outline Browser.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287545#Comment_1287545

I was talking about the Bible Outline Browser but referenced the Bible Browser.

Okay, you have me 99.99% confused. The Bible Outline Browser simply presents outlines found in our libraries in a manner that we can easily compare them to other outlines or see an outline that is pieced together from multiple sections of a book as a single outline.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287439#Comment_1287439

Coincidentally, in a recent internal document, I used the Bible Outline Browser as an example of a potentially useful tool that isn't delivering on its promise

It is woeful:

I started with Matt 24 on the Read section, and the "outline" was for Luke in NTS

it presented the whole book despite the drop-down that implied passages would be selected
most of the other books did present Matthew (I didn't fully check this).

There are no links to the actual book
most of the outlines are so condensed as to be useless,
Not sure what the Compare is supposed to illustrate (still on Mt 24)

if I click/select one of the "outline" sections on NTS, Read takes me to the first book (BBC), and
I have to hit the useful direction arrows on the LHS to see the other outlines
NTS is still on Luke

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1287566#Comment_1287566

it presented the whole book despite the drop-down that implied passages would be selected

I think it restricts which outlines are shown i.e. the left side not the right side. It assumes you need the complete outline for context.

most of the outlines are so condensed as to be useless,

I agree - they originally did the easy ones and never got around to the useful ones.