PB Building SUCKS

Yes, the PBB function is limited and under supported for historical reasons. Did you know that sucks as slang is consider rude in some circles?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319567#Comment_1319567

Did you know that sucks as slang is consider rude in some circles?

from https://www.barebones.com/products/bbedit/index.html

Something I cannot say about the PB Builder.

the PBB function is limited and under supported for historical reasons.

Whats the historical reason? Thanks for explaining.

Aaron Sauer

This is an unacceptable post. There's no place in our forums for these types of posts.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319571#Comment_1319571

Whats the historical reason? Thanks for explaining.

There are reasons why I find it difficult to give a neutral account of the history which is why I did not go into details. If someone else wishes to, they are free to do so.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319577#Comment_1319577

PBB is just not the tool designed for technical books.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319567#Comment_1319567

PBB function is limited and under supported for historical reasons

I don't know specifically what MJ is referring to. However: Logos envisioned people using the personal book builder to create books that THEY wrote. Instead, it was used to create duplicates of public domain works and/or to import books from other formats (i.e. Kindle). That goes against the best interests of Logos (and could have legal ramifications). This is the reason why the tool is no longer under development.

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319585#Comment_1319585

I have tried multiple times over the years to make PBs work for me, and it is just too clunky. Logos note making on the other hand also has some significant limitations. Whether it be due to copywrite concerns, other development prioritie, etc, you will see mention on these forums people doing their research and knowledge management on other platforms such as Obsidian, Logseq, Zotero. It is at this point you realise these forces make Logos a bit of a walled garden. I made a plea in the beta forums in the transition to universal links, which I am still of the view that we will lose some of our historic functionality with L4 links. Time will tell, but to Fabian’s question, I don’t believe we will see any change in this very soon. Even the ability to export clippings to Readwise (a very highly voted on feature) is likely to not feature on any development map soon. The only way I see this shifting is for the academic and research crowd uniting on what they want.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319596#Comment_1319596

The only way I see this shifting is for the academic and research crowd uniting on what they want.

Perhaps, I've had an inadvertent advantage in evaluating Verbum. I never expected it to be a bibliography manager or a serious article/thesis writer or even a comprehensive Bible studies research tool. I have, however, constantly pushed for a broader range of resources, support built around complete methods, and a softening of their approach of pretend-original-language scholars. I am actually optimistic that competition from AI engines will force Logos to methodically concentrate on what AI cannot provide. But it will require a broader range of expertise to design than I have seen in the company thus far.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319572#Comment_1319572

This is an unacceptable post. There's no place in our forums for these types of posts.

Your post is inappropriate! I gave reasons why PB Builder sucks. All what you do is to yell user down who don't worship Logos as you do. Please give reasons why Logos PB don't suck and we can discuss. Otherwise shadup!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319585#Comment_1319585

PBB function is limited and under supported for historical reasons

I don't know specifically what MJ is referring to. However: Logos envisioned people using the personal book builder to create books that THEY wrote. Instead, it was used to create duplicates of public domain works and/or to import books from other formats (i.e. Kindle). That goes against the best interests of Logos (and could have legal ramifications). This is the reason why the tool is no longer under development.

Thanks. But this doesn't give Logos the right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

Or maybe I forgot, in the US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection. And thats how the companies can habit as they do. Changing EULA, etc. how they like it. I don't see Logos as a christian company. Money is all they adore.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319613#Comment_1319613

I use the MSWord link function to build links without any difficulty. The PBB compiler interprets them correctly. How are you building your links that page numbers would have any effect?

US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection.

Your evidence?

right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

You've lost me. What deleted functions are you talking about? There were functions lost between Libronix 3 and Logos 4 and a few trial features such as the Handout and things like Ask the Author and the internal stripped-down Wikipedia have been removed ... But, yes, a software company does have the right to remove obsolete features or features too expensive to move to contemporary implementations. Otherwise, I'd still be running my beloved Houdini.

Mark Barnes (Logos)

Just a gentle reminder that with a broad user base of users from many different cultures, we need to be especially careful with our language. What's acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another.

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319613#Comment_1319613

Thanks. But this doesn't give Logos the right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

Or maybe I forgot, in the US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection. And thats how the companies can habit as they do. Changing EULA, etc. how they like it. I don't see Logos as a christian company. Money is all they adore.

Can you give me one single example of a non US software company that supports all products and all functions forever?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319619#Comment_1319619

Thanks. But this doesn't give Logos the right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

Or maybe I forgot, in the US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection. And thats how the companies can habit as they do. Changing EULA, etc. how they like it. I don't see Logos as a christian company. Money is all they adore.

Can you give me one single example of a non US software company that supports all products and all functions forever?

The evidence are the end user license changes we have all the time to accept all the time if we want to use the software further. Last time it was from Microsoft.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319619#Comment_1319619

Thanks. But this doesn't give Logos the right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

Or maybe I forgot, in the US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection. And thats how the companies can habit as they do. Changing EULA, etc. how they like it. I don't see Logos as a christian company. Money is all they adore.

Can you give me one single example of a non US software company that supports all products and all functions forever?

Es geht ja hier um das bewusste streichen von Funktionen. Und ja dass können die Amerikaner ganz gut.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319619#Comment_1319619

Thanks. But this doesn't give Logos the right to delete functions they have advertised and people had paid for.

Or maybe I forgot, in the US all is possible, because there is no real consumer protection. And thats how the companies can habit as they do. Changing EULA, etc. how they like it. I don't see Logos as a christian company. Money is all they adore.

Can you give me one single example of a non US software company that supports all products and all functions forever?

Es geht ja hier um das bewusste streichen von Funktionen. Und ja dass können die Amerikaner ganz gut.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319625#Comment_1319625

Unfortunately once again my last post from a few hours ago got not through. And this was folgendermassen:

Back to the topic. I have invested several hours to do a PB. I have build it a few times from scratch, as some links got brocken and I couldn't restore them. Yesterday I have added page numbers. After the reimport, the links got brocken. I removed the page numbers and the links are still brocken. This is a annoying behavior that sucks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319615#Comment_1319615

Your evidence?

I don't live in the US, but he does https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IddLA71MLjU. In this video he tells this,

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319571#Comment_1319571

There are many words that are not acceptable today and especially so for those that call themselves Christian. I find your use of the word you used offensive because of that. Christians should put "wordly ways" and "wordly thoughts" and "wordly words" out of their lives... That word you used has connotations that are not in keeping with that.

I will be glad to report you should you be so determined to try to influence Christians on this forum to live in such a wordly language. I suggest that you find some other way to express yourself so that you are not so offenses to others. Thanks.

[8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319615#Comment_1319615

I use the MSWord link function to build links without any difficulty. The PBB compiler interprets them correctly. How are you building your links that page numbers would have any effect?

Not this links. I talk in my first post about the [[Label >> links]] to a [[@Headword:Links]]. Sorry I only abbreviated it. To write less.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319630#Comment_1319630

There are many words that are not acceptable today and especially so for those that call themselves Christian. I find your use of the word you used offensive because of that. Christians should put "wordly ways" and "wordly thoughts" and "wordly words" out of their lives... That word you used has connotations that are not in keeping with that.

I will be glad to report you should you be so determined to try to influence Christians on this forum to live in such a wordly language. I suggest that you find some other way to express yourself so that you are not so offenses to others. Thanks.

Thanks. If a feature sucks then it sucks. No need to use euphemism. I have explained why it sucks. The problem is more the forum user who always thinks they need to protect Logos. And the discussions with this "Logos advocates" end unfortunately often in this way. Why can't they not accept, that there are features in their adored Logos that sucks? Are they so blind to not read my post to see why I think it sucks? If they would do a PB themselves and lost hours of work, instead of bullying others, they would understand me as they would ran in the same issues I have.

There are features that are great and I'm happy to have it. And there are features that sucks. Which should be urgently improved.

Unfortunately two: Logos seems not to be interested to fix it. "Currently not planned" is most of the time the standard response.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319630#Comment_1319630

I find your use of the word you used offensive

Whereas in I find it difficult to conceive how, in the rearified atmosphere of Bible Software, anything Logos did could suck.

But then I'm only an armchair physicist.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319572#Comment_1319572

This is an unacceptable post. There's no place in our forums for these types of posts.

Stop trying to Americanize non-native English speakers.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319635#Comment_1319635

Well, at least the forum is emenently predictable. An offending word, within a very short period, takes charge, over an offending problem.

It's why I view the BWS as largely naive ... significance of meaning is missing.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319631#Comment_1319631

Consistently communicating effectively and respectfully online is a very difficult thing to do. I applaud those who serve as role models in this area. As to the PB tool, I hope one day it becomes more clearly defined as to how users are expected to use it and is subsequently optimized so that users can accomplish those particular tasks more effectively. I may be wrong, but my feeling is that fear that users will misuse the tool has prevented Logos from improving it to the extent that they are capable of. If limitations were in place to safeguard against misuse, perhaps they would feel more comfortable working on it.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319642#Comment_1319642

my feeling is that fear that users will misuse the tool has prevented Logos from improving it

It isn't a "fear." They know what we build and know how it is being used. Somewhere, there is a post from a Logos employee but I don't have time to try and hunt it down.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319645#Comment_1319645

It isn't a "fear." They know what we build and know how it is being used. Somewhere, there is a post from a Logos employee but I don't have time to try and hunt it down.

Right, fear is a touchy word. Perhaps "concern" would be more fitting. I am suggesting that they limit its ability to be used in ways that they disapprove of. This would perhaps enable them to finally give the tool some proper attention.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319646#Comment_1319646

It isn't a "fear." They know what we build and know how it is being used. Somewhere, there is a post from a Logos employee but I don't have time to try and hunt it down.

Right, fear is a touchy word. Perhaps "concern" would be more fitting. I am suggesting that they limit its ability to be used in ways that they disapprove of. This would perhaps enable them to finally give the tool some proper attention.

May we have here a different opinion. If the people give a beggar 20 bucks. Some think they can say: But don't purchase alcohol, as it is not good for you. Others like myself think: It is now his responsibility how the beggar invest the money. Also some people think they can say how the money should be used they spend in the church. In my opinion it is now in the responsibility of the church to make the best of it to glorify God. The first one is to try to take influence = Witchcraft not spiritual but monetary. The second let it belongs to God how he lead the persons how to invest = freedom as it is given by God.

Same with the PB Builder. It depends on who thinks is responsible how it should be used?

Yasmin Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319642#Comment_1319642

If limitations were in place to safeguard against misuse, perhaps they would feel more comfortable working on it.

What kind of limitations are you thinking of? I know I've seen people posting, in pbook format, books that are being sold by Logos and books that are still under copyright. It's one thing to create whatever pbooks you want for your personal use, but it's quite another thing to come distribute them on the forums. Legal issues, profit issues? Yeah, if I were in Logos's place, I would think twice of developing this tool further.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319650#Comment_1319650

Same with the PB Builder. It depends on who thinks is responsible how it should be used?

I appreciate your thoughts. I believe there is a lot of merit to them. Nonetheless, you said earlier in this thread that you do not consider Logos to be a Christian company. In some ways I certainly agree with you. I expect Logos to make decisions that are in their best business interest. In my view, this serves their mission well, because if they were to go out of business I expect that would have a detrimental impact on many workers in the ministry. Thus, I would not expect them to invest in a tool in ways that would run contrary to their business interests.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319651#Comment_1319651

What kind of limitations are you thinking of? I know I've seen people posting, in pbook format, books that are being sold by Logos and books that are still under copyright. It's one thing to create whatever pbooks you want for your personal use, but it's quite another thing to come distribute them on the forums. Legal issues, profit issues? Yeah, if I were in Logos's place, I would think twice of developing this tool further.

I'm with you 100%. As I was writing my comment, I anticipated this question. The honest answer is that I do not believe I have enough information to answer it in any kind of satisfactory way. Ultimately, if Logos cannot answer it either, then I expect we will never see this tool optimized. However, I do think a solution lies within reach, though the product may end up being quite different from what exists today.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319618#Comment_1319618

Just a gentle reminder that with a broad user base of users from many different cultures, we need to be especially careful with our language. What's acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another.

You are absolutely right Mark. Over the years I have experienced discouraging comments from some people. It really hurt me, but I let it go. I think we should be careful with our comments. We should be respectful and careful not to offend others.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319654#Comment_1319654

I expect we will never see this tool optimized. However, I do think a solution lies within reach, though the product may end up being quite different from what exists today.

The main problem, as I see it, is that Logos hold these 'Personal Books' (PBs) on their servers and download them to other computers that should be but may not be owned by the same user. A user careless of Copyright may also be careless of other Licence Conditions.

By distributing 'Copyright' material Logos may be sailing very close to the legal wind.

So the solution would be to not allow PB's to be uploaded and therefore the 'legitimacy' of copies on the server would no longer be a concern.

Then, of course, users would want to know why they couldn't access their PB's on their other devices and a new solution would need to be found.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319660#Comment_1319660

the solution would be to not allow PB's to be uploaded

users would want to know why they couldn't access their PB's on their other devices

I agree.

I'd MUCH rather have to recreate PBs on other devices than not have a workable tool.

FWIW.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319664#Comment_1319664

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/126859/848584.aspx#848584

This is 8 years old, but I think it is still basically right, except that they have implemented some of the things (like sermon builder and improved notes) that were only planned at the time.

If there was a simplistic answer, we'd share it. It is a complicated, muddy issue, though.

- There are surprising technical difficulties: chief among them are that we don't do a local index on mobile devices. (Yet. And maybe never. But that's a whole technical problem itself.) So we have to search the whole catalog on the server, and that whole catalog takes nearly 24 hours to index. But at least it only needs to be reindexed when we create a new resource, so no more than once a day. Which just barely works. Then we filter out results for books you don't own. (I may be glossing over details here, but it's generally correct.)

Adding user-created PBB's to this story dramatically increases the number of titles, could delay indexing to where we can't do it in 24 hours, and really clutters the index, because a massive number of PBB books are the same book created independently by many people, due to sharing of source files and recompiling of them.

- PBB was intended to be a way to compile your own personal books. We aren't, for obvious reasons, interested in a creating a model where all of our users become competitors to ourselves, using our own tools. Taking public domain titles, building PBBs, and then sharing those PBBs for free is a great community service, but a bad business model for us, who ends up maintaining the storage, servers, tools, etc. Yes, yes, yes, we could price that into our business, etc. but... we didn't. And it's late to go re-engineer our entire pricing and business model to being a tools provider for user-shared content libraries.

We're also concerned about various problems with user-created content, based on our experience: When third-parties previously were enabled to create books in our format (even professional, business third parties), there were varying levels of quality. No matter who created the book, and no matter what it said in the information panel, we took the phone call / the complaint / the heat. (Yes, our books aren't all of perfect quality, and there's probably a title that needs maintenance that's annoying you right now. :-) But we do have consistent standards and regularly invest in fixing both books with many reported issues and ALL the books on an ongoing rotation basis. We can't do that with third-party created content.)

This would be less of an issue if most PBBs were a user's own, original content -- but most PBBs are actually public domain content. Often a duplication of something we already sell (thus competing with us, at the price of free), or something we intend to produce (which would be nearly all public domain content in the biblical studies area).

So yes, we want to protect our business model and keep our customers from competing with us using our own tools. Which sounds unfriendly, but at some level is essential and normal: it's why the Apple App store rejects some apps that compete with Apple, why the Amazon Echo won't let you build a third-party skill that reads audio books (that could compete with their Audible offerings), etc. Businesses don't like to build the tools of their own destruction. Yes, it happens, and sometimes you have to take some lost revenue in order to win customer goodwill, but there has to be a line somewhere.

(And, in theory, if we did just eat this small lost sales on PD content, but made it super easy to share and use PBBs -- and even created the originally planned PBB store where you could sell or giveaway PBBs that were then easily integrated into other users' libraries, we'd probably end up spending a lot of time playing whack-a-mole, and making people angry, as we tried to enforce whatever copyright and non-duplicative-to-existing-Logos-offerings rules we put in place.)

- All of this is something we might still endure and invest in if it enabled us to do what PBB was intended to do: let you publish your own content in Logos format for personal (or even shared) use. But....

NOBODY does that. *

* In this context 'NOBODY' does not mean zero, but is practically zero in terms of the percentage of people using our platform.

We did an analysis of the books run through the PBB system, and not only are close to zero of them actually 'personal' books (and there mostly sermons, which we're now planning to support through different tools, including SoundFaith.com, with integration with Logos searching), but a huge number are actually copyrighted titles scanned, exported, or otherwise brought into the system.

So, enabling PBB sync to mobile, or a PBB store, would be investing a lot more work to not only decrease sales of our public domain titles, but (mostly) enabling what's likely illegal (or legally dubious 'fair-use') distribution of copyrighted titles.

In theory, if we skipped the store and only enabled sync of your own files, we might be in the DMCA safe harbor zone, and not responsible for the copyright violations, and unlikely to get takedown notices in light of the fact that the files would stay within each user's own file storage / sync data... but it's a lot of work to support a not great scenario.

And, lastly, NOBODY uses PBB. *

* Same asterisk. Yes, I know that's not true -- that's why this thread is here. But in the big picture of all our users, PBB is a feature used by a tiny group of users who are passionate about it and have many resources in the system, but represent, as a group, only a tiny fraction of our user base.

None of these issues alone is the reason PBB doesn't get attention, and none of these issues are black-and-white. It's all muddy and has 'vague feelings' attached. :-) That's why it's been hard to be super-clear.... we want to support certain scenarios, and some users want those too, but reality aligns more with other scenarios, which we're not excited about for both technical and business reasons....

The scenarios we'd like to support are:

1) Users archiving and retrieving (and even sharing) their own sermons. We'll be addressing this with specialized tools and databases. (Sermon Editor, SoundFaith.com and more to come.)

2) Users being able to store articles, research, and clippings for their own purposes -- a kind of clippings file. We're considering addressing this with support for searchable attachments to Notes, a long-standing request. PDF, audio, video, etc. (No date yet, but it's a planned feature. And please note that attached documents wouldn't have all the functionality of actual notes or native resources.)

3) Users archiving and sharing the results of their study that aren't really monograph length, but are worth sharing. We'll support this through improvements to document sharing, and particularly by improving discovery of what's publicly available.

4) Users creating, sharing and even sellling their own monographs. We thought PBB was a solution for this, but now realize its more rare than we thought, and still best served by going through a 'publisher', whether third-party or our own Lexham Press.

We do not have plans to 'kill' the PBB feature or disable what already exists. We haven't announced the death of PBB because we don't intend to take anything away, but we have announced that mobile sync and the store are on hold. I'm still not sure, even with all this, that we won't eventually do these things, but right now, based on present use cases and number of users, it's at the very bottom of our priority list.

I hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding. Thanks!

-- Bob

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319650#Comment_1319650

May we have here a different opinion... It depends on who thinks is responsible how it should be used?

Unfortunately, your opinion and mine don't matter much for our purposes. The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act binds Logos and holds them liable for hosting copyrighted material. Safe harbor protections are very narrow and require very specific conditions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319683#Comment_1319683

May we have here a different opinion... It depends on who thinks is responsible how it should be used?

Unfortunately, your opinion and mine don't matter much for our purposes. The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act binds Logos and holds them liable for hosting copyrighted material. Safe harbor protections are very narrow and require very specific conditions.

Thanks, but I don't live in the US. And the country where I live has different laws.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319693#Comment_1319693

Thanks, but I don't live in the US. And the country where I live has different laws.

But Logos is in the US. That's why I said Logos is bound, not you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319694#Comment_1319694

Thanks, but I don't live in the US. And the country where I live has different laws.

But Logos is in the US. That's why I said Logos is bound, not you.

Jein, German for yes and no. Locally it is on my Mac. So no US law is involved. The servers are in the US in this case, yes.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319631#Comment_1319631

Not this links. I talk in my first post about the [[Label >> links]] to a [[@Headword:Links]].

To which I say, I use the MSWord native linking not the Logos link.

Dave Hooton

Hello I have done my short German dictionary. In general it worked fine. A problem has been reported and will hopefully be resolved in the near future. Today I wanted to add page numbers. They worked fine. But now again most of the label links don't work anymore. First of all it seems [[@Page:XX]][[@Headword:Blabla]] don't work properly. It seems the label links to this location are dead now. It seems Logos PB is not capable enough. I have separated the @Page and the @Headword in two different paragraphs. Unfortunately this doesn't fix the issue.

If you still have a problem to be addressed I suggest you create a new thread, upload your source file (or relevant part of it) and advise how it should be compiled (e.g. German language, type Dictionary). Clarify "A problem has been reported" if that is relevant.

I have a test PB with at least three different types of links, including labels, and they continue to work (whether for headwords, page numbers or internal locations).

Antony Brennan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319720#Comment_1319720

This thread got me thinking if it would be useful for Logos to provide a form for reporting bugs and requesting changes or help. This would enable the requester to provide the most relevant information at the outset.

Unfortunately, many reports and requests lack valuable details that aid in identifying the issues they are concerned about.

I get the feeling if this thread had started with I am trying to do A, B, and C, so I can get outcome E, I’ve already tried F and G, can anyone help me, that three pages later there may be a resolution.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319703#Comment_1319703

Antony Brennan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319731#Comment_1319731

So true though

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319732#Comment_1319732

So true though

Pitrell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319628#Comment_1319628

Es geht ja hier um das bewusste streichen von Funktionen. Und ja dass können die Amerikaner ganz gut.

Bro, ich spüre dir ab, dass du gerade eine Menge Zeit für Nichts investiert hast. Das tut mir leid und ich versteh deinen Ärger. Aber bitte fahr ein bisschen runter. Das hier sind noch immer deine Geschwister.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319759#Comment_1319759

Es geht ja hier um das bewusste streichen von Funktionen. Und ja dass können die Amerikaner ganz gut.

Bro, ich spüre dir ab, dass du gerade eine Menge Zeit für Nichts investiert hast. Das tut mir leid und ich versteh deinen Ärger. Aber bitte fahr ein bisschen runter. Das hier sind noch immer deine Geschwister.

Ich stimme voll und ganz zu

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319759#Comment_1319759

Es gibt mehrere Sachen die nerven:

Die falschen Versprechungen von Logos.
Das der PB Builder nicht wirklich geht, wie von Logos beworben.
Dass sich Logos wohl einen scheiss drum kümmert dies je zu flicken. Man könnte ja Geld verlieren.
Dass wenn man dann Logos auf die Füsse tritt, gleich die "Logos Advokaten" aufspringen und mit ihrem Beissreflex alle die es wagen ihrem Anbetungsobjekt zu nahe zu kommen im Forum niederschreien.
Keine Ahnung warum die das machen. Sie schaden sich ja selber, indem Logos dann die Probleme nicht angeht. Scheint wohl indoktriniert oder angeboren zu sein. Zumindest ist das rational anderweitig nicht zu begründen.
Selbst haben die "Logos Advokaten" aber keinen blassen Schimmer, sonst würden sie auch auf die selben Probleme stossen.
Die anderen Pöbler, die auch gleich darauf anspringen.
So ein kindisches Verhalten habe ich sonst in keinem anderen Forum erlebt.
Nur weil ein Post mental ein bisschen herausfordern ist, heisst das noch lange nicht, dass man es nicht wirklich lesen muss. Will heissen, mir fällt auf, dass wenn den Einten etwas nicht passt sie meine Nachricht nicht wirklich lesen. Sobald der Beissreflex anspringt schalten sie das Hirn aus. So wie der Weisse Hai, die Augen nach hinten dreht bevor er zubeisst um sie zu schützen.

Ich danke dir für deinen Rat, aber wenn sich niemand beschwert ändert sich auch nichts. Weiss du dass laut Untersuchungen nur 26% sich melden bei Problemen? Die anderen verlassen still und heimlich die Software, Service Dienstleiter etc.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1319729#Comment_1319729

This thread got me thinking if it would be useful for Logos to provide a form for reporting bugs and requesting changes or help. This would enable the requester to provide the most relevant information at the outset.

Unfortunately, many reports and requests lack valuable details that aid in identifying the issues they are concerned about.

I get the feeling if this thread had started with I am trying to do A, B, and C, so I can get outcome E, I’ve already tried F and G, can anyone help me, that three pages later there may be a resolution.

Yes, I thought the same, but we have to be sure this forum/threads are visited by the developers.