Library: Add Prioritization Status as a Filter field
Due to the immense usability issues with prioritization (addressed in some of my other requests), it would be great if I could narrow down what I'm viewing in my library to filter out things that have already been prioritized, so that I can avoid accidentally adding something and moving it from it's carefully placed location in my large list of prioritized resources.
I'm struggling to think about exactly how these might need worded and the specific values for filtering out but maybe something like the following filter options:
- No Series Prioritization
- No Individual Title Prioritization
- No Prioritization (maybe this one isn't needed?)
The wording feels a bit off because it's almost the reverse of the other filters (looking for what a resource isn't rather than what it is).
Comments
-
I realized a number of fields already represent "None", so I guess you could do something like:
- Prioritization Status
- None
- No Series Priority
- No Book Priority
I realized I probably would want None as an option for initial prioritization of all of my resources, and then I might specialize later when I'm focusing on the details.
0 - Prioritization Status
-
If seeking a new field/column heading in Library, it would be better to set a value for books that have been prioritized:
1 or Book = Book prioritized
2 or Series =Series prioritized
3 or Both = Book and Series prioritized i.e. the book is prioritized as well as the Series
You would not know if the Book priority was effective, though (it has to be higher than the series).Do you want to know if a book has been used in Advanced Prioritization and/or prioritized normally?
Books that have not been prioritized would stand out when sorting Library by the new column, and they could be found with a filter like {Priority None}.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
1 -
I'm not clear on the "value" portion of your response since I haven't noticed any sorts of "values" in the Library filters (unless you're referring to an underlying implementation detail?), but it otherwise seems spot on.
Great point about not knowing if the Book priority was effective - that one seems more like an exercise for an improved prioritization UI.
Regarding your last question, my primary goals are 1) to know books I might want to add to my prioritization list and 2) avoid mucking up existing placement. From that aspect, I imagine I generally wouldn't care if something had already been added as Advanced Prioritization since those wouldn't get moved if I added a new one. I think I only care if it's been prioritized normally.
0 -
{Priority None} is a filter for books that have a Priority (a search field name) without a Value. Other wise {Priority "Book"} or priority:book will find books that have been prioritized. The field name is usually the name of the column in Library > Details View, and you would see a Value of "Book" under that column name. See real examples below (from the Library wiki):-
- A Search Field in italics does not have an associated column, otherwise it is the sme as the Column name.
- Field Syntax shows what you must enter in the Find box (or the Rule box of a Collection).
- Extension Syntax is the syntax for an efficient exact match that is availbale on some fields.
Search Field
Field Syntax
Extension Syntax
Example / Comment
Reading Status
—
{ReadingStatus}
Has values Unread, New, Reading, or Finished e.g. {ReadingStatus New}
Type
type:
e.g. type:"bible commentary" or type:bible-commentary
Title
title:
e.g. title:Matthew-An-Introduction or title:"Matthew An Introduction"
Note that the colon after Matthew has been omitted.Abbreviated Title
abbrev:
e.g. abbrev:TNTC-Mt
Alternate Title
alttitle:
Not used in the App; usually lengthy
My Tags
mytag:
{MyTag}
User tags e.g. mytag:creation, {MyTag "Creation"}
An attempt to improve the Prioritization wiki was begun several years ago, but it encountered difficulties with incorporating "priorities" relevant to different features. The software prior to Logos 4 (Logos 3 or Libronix) had a more sophisticated UI that could have coped with the proposed changes, but it was deemed too complex for Logos 4 (and it was written for an Internet Explorer code base).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Thanks for the explanation - makes sense! I do wish this advanced searching was surfaced in a better way (for discoverability), but that's a request for another day.
0
