a question from an Accordance User

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer,

Thanks for your detailed response, and I will respond in sections since you mentioned a lot of important points.

There are some practical things, when it comes to Logos and original language studies, that I have wished for years could be improved. (i.e. the popup parsing window at the bottom of the screen is so small and hard to read) Accordance has a little button that you can increase or decrease the size of that text, and it makes all the difference of the world in the useability of that function.

For sure! I know that Logos has the additional option to have the popup parsing to the right under "information" but there are really two issues. First, it is just easy to overlook since there are literally two different things called "Information" (from the three dots which provides copyright "Information," and from Tools which provides the parsing "Information"). So I think it would help if these two fundamentally different things were not called the same thing. Anyway, the other problem is that since it pops out as a column, it goes from being too small to large too the point of being obnoxious (literally eating a column of my screen). Likewise, since it has SO MUCH information, it takes a second to load, compared to the Accordance Instant Details which are truly instant.

With that said, there is some neuro science out there about how we bond to a software platform and the dynamics we go through when we change to something else. My impression of this is similar to the old paper Bible you have for many years and then you buy a new one, but you go through a period of adjustment… even though it may be the same version.

I think that is a good analogy, and when I first downloaded Logos that was my impression as well. However, the more I work with it, it has become pretty obvious that Logos in fact does excel in certain ways, and I would argue it is better for a lot of pastors. I would for sure recommend it to any pastor over Acc. However, that said, for original languages Accordance blows Logos out of the water. I am under the impression that I "can" do my work in Logos, however, I can say with certainty that I can do it faster and more efficiently in Accordance. I would argue this is not subjective either, since when it comes to original language tasks, Logos can take 3 or 4 steps when Accordance needs 1 or 2 steps. So done thousands of times a day, it really adds up. Likewise, Accordance is better set up for translators (imo), since when I import my User Bible, I literally just need to click import and I am done. By contrast, while I understand I can upload my text under the "Personal Book," in order to do so I need to litter it with all of this html to let Logos the BIBLE software company know it is a Bible and not a random other book. And frankly, my problem isn't the time it would take to add all the html, the problem is that after it is done, my text is now filled with html, which is obviously unacceptable since I use my text for other purposes. So the amount of steps OL work requires, and the User Bible vs PB issue, are reasons why it is objectively not simply an issue of it being like moving from a paper book. Again, it is simply that the two programs have different focuses (at least they did when I bought Accordance). Logos' Guides are a perfect example of this. Logos isn't claiming that these guides include EVERYTHING, they are claiming that the most important information is front and center and easy to find. I can see that as being crucial for a pastor, but a hindrance for a researcher.

As an example, some years ago I decided to switch from Spotify to Apple Music. Same music, a very similar approach to streaming music, but I just struggled. For some reason I cannot now recall, I decided to allow my Spotify subscription lapse, and then three months later of using no streaming service, I picked up Apple on a special deal. That period of break made the change seem not so great, and I never looked back as I rebuilt my streaming library.

I think this paragraph is a great example why Logos really needs a message center. I love music and listen to it whenever I can (24/7 when I can). Yet I don't use Spotify or Apple Music as I saw issues with both. If there was a message center I could send you a message and ask you about it (in line with your comment above about building community), but on this thread it would be too random and keeps everything more superficial. Like you mentioned above, with any normal message portal, if a user doesn't want to use it, they can simply disable it.

In conclusion, while we can form strong attachments to frequently used applications through emotional and cognitive processes, switching to new apps presents significant challenges due to the brain's preference for familiar patterns and the cognitive demands of adapting to new systems.

This is true. I also think the more I work with Logos the better it will be (without discounting the fact that I already know certain tasks I do are simply faster in Accordance). It also has been challenging since Logos really dropped the ball with training. Those Accordance webinars (which are not only free but you get a coupon!!), provided the opportunity to ask live questions which were helpful to the person asking and everyone there. By contrast, Logos, well, handles it differently. Additionally, any videos I find are from a pastoral perspective. For example, I think @Robb Brunansky's YouTube video he posted did a great job helping pastors get a good grip on how to do crucial tasks in both programs. However, the vast majority of those tasks are not things I do (like the Word Study or Topics as examples), and OL tasks I do every day are normally not in these types of videos. So I think the transition to even learn the software is more difficult for someone who does my type of work compared to a pastor, since there are simply more videos for pastors out there.

Great perspectives. I think it's fair to say that Logos tends to cater more to pastors than to researchers. However, I haven't been impressed with the recent pace of development over at Accordance. The day maycome when Logos proves superior even for your purposes.

Hi @Aaron Hamilton,

Thank you, and I for sure haven't been impressed with development over there either. I really hope that Logos improves things for my type of work as well. To be honest though, I don't feel super optimistic since their new "subscription" model seems kind of extreme. If I understand it correctly, any new version is just on this subscription thing, which I am passionately against. (I get that all companies want to squeeze money out of customers, but maybe a compromise would be to have subscriptions for things like the AI thing, but then not requiring a subscription for basic functionality (like improving the right click function of how to search for lemmas). When I originally called Logos' sales to get 10, I did so to avoid the subscription, and said this to the sales guy. The Logos sales rep strongly implied that the subscription model wasn't going to last and said that throughout the years Logos has tried various programs, and thought people would maintain the ability to buy versions outright. So I don't know enough about Logos' history to have any thoughts about that, other than to say I hope he is right.

If you have some specific tasks that you do in Accordance which feel difficult or impossible in Logos, maybe it would be helpful to make a separate thread about each one. I'm sure that I or others would be happy to make some tutorial videos if there is a better way. 

Hi @Justin Gatlin,

Thank you for the idea, and your reasoning makes sense. I think right now my biggest issue is that searching the lemma is "clunky" for a lack of a better term. Given what you wrote, I will create a post trying to clarify this, and if you or someone has a better way to do it than I am currently doing, that would be helpful to know. Thank you.

@Kristin what kind of original language work do you do, if you are able to share?

Hi @Robb Brunansky,

I am primarily doing translation work resulting in a "translation" not a "version" like the NIV or ESV. So I am exclusively working from the original text. I am thus concerned about exact counts of words (which is why the rare count discrepancies between the Logos lemma and Accordance lexeme caused me distress), and I also look at related words in other ancient languages. I am thus really not concerned at all about commentaries addressing pastoral application. (I would like to clarify though that I think that type of application has its place, and I like both the NIV and ESV, and use them both with students).

As someone who lives in both worlds, I think it depends on the kind of research a person is doing. Original language research might be better in Accordance, but I think Logos has the edge on research that involves searching libraries.

Hi @Robb Brunansky,

I agree with this in part. I for sure agree which program is better depends on the type of research, and I agree that Accordance is better with OL. However, I am not sure if I would agree that Logos is better at searching libraries, as it really depends on the type of search. As mentioned earlier on this thread, if someone wants a clean, organized synopsis of relevant info for a sermon, Logos is better. But if someone is searching for pieces of information which are not relevant for sermons, Accordance is better.

here are features I still miss in Accordance, but the differences are minor for my level of study. Yes, there are occasionally more clicks to do the same thing, but with everything consolidated in one place and features like AI enhancing my research, it's now more troublesome to run two apps.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer,

This makes sense, but from my perspective it isn't just "occasionally more clicks," but if I were to do all my work in Logos it would literally be thousands of extra clicks every day, which is rough on my wrist and also wastes time. And I obviously don't need AI. :)