I would like to create a collection for all my resources each according to its type, would you please tell me the best and easiest way I could do?
Hi Tes
Please read this wiki article as it should tell you all you need to know.
The syntax is simple, just use
type:Monograph for Monographstype:Bible Commentary for Biblical Commentaries
So, follow this pattern, creating a collection for each type, here's the list of types, as seen in the library window after you click on the type header
Hi ,Dave and Kevin,I have many dictionaries in my Library,but when I type dictionary only four of them are leasted,but what I want to is I want to have the list of all of my books according to their type.
That's because there has been a recent change in the resource types, and now, only Modern Language Dictionaries are type:dictionary. There are now three types (dictionary, encyclopedia, and lexicon) where there used to be only one (dictionary).
See this post for details: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/24033.aspx?PageIndex=1
Tes,
I have been working all afternoon on my collections also. I've been pleasently overwhelmed by my library since getting L4. And after upgrading from leaders to Scholars......
Anyway here is a link I stumbled across in the Wiki. It may not be perfect for what you want, but I am so new to having a library this size, I didn't even know what "type" catagory to even ask for. Be careful taking my advice though. These men ahead of me in this post are the ones you want to listen to if your not sure.
And it may have been mentioned in one of those replies.
http://wiki.logos.com/Example_Collections
If the field name has a space in it and you're using the full field name, you have to put quotes around it. Thus the second of those would have to be
type:"Bible Commentary"
Otherwise it would only match resources which had type:bible and happened to have the word "commentary" somewhere in one of the fields (possibly in the description), which isn't what you want.
On the other hand, all you really need to include is enough text to match the field name uniquely, so this would be sufficient:
type:commentary
On the other hand, all you really need to include is enough text to match the field name uniquely, so this would be sufficient: type:commentary
Except there are commentaries which aren't Bible commentaries. I have two, a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, and one on the Pseudepigrapha.
Anyway here is a link I stumbled across in the Wiki. It may not be perfect for what you want, but I am so new to having a library this size, I didn't even know what "type" catagory to even ask for. Be careful taking my advice though. These men ahead of me in this post are the ones you want to listen to if your not sure. And it may have been mentioned in one of those replies. http://wiki.logos.com/Example_Collections
I amended some entries there because they were less than perfect, not reflecting the new resource types ==> sorry, Todd and Mark Barnes!
Thank you! I'd done it here, but forgotten they were also on the Wiki.
I would be glad,if I could have a screen-shot to follow the process.
I'm not sure what is still confusing to you about this, Tes. I think you have been making collections for months now. Am I mistaken?
But here is a screenshot:
This is just the example for the new type "Encyclopedia" which includes all of what we might consider a Dictionary (Bible dictionaries, etc.). The type Dictionary is now only for a simple word book where you look up the definition of a word in English or another language.
For all the other types, you would do similar rules. type:Lexicon, etc.
I have typed encyclopedia,but the result I have got is as shown below mixed.My purpose is to be able to search a certain reference or word in a specific collection ex. if I want to search it in commentary or in a dictionary or in any of my resources ,if there is any benefit I am ready to learn from you
.
Tes, even though some of the resources in the type:Encyclopedia collection have the word Dictionary in the title doesn't mean that they are different types of resources. These resources offer articles (usually short) on various topics. If you are looking for an overview of a topic then this would be the collection to search.
type:Dictionary would be a collection to search if you are unclear about the meaning of a word and need a definition.
type:Lexicon would be the collection to search if you need to Look up a Hebrew or Greek word.
The above answers the question of when you might search a collection centered on a book type. You do know how to use a collection when you search, right?
Rosie's collection is specific,she typed encyclopedia and she has got it,but in my case I have got mixed resources.
What you see may be specific but she has far more resources than you. This is where you need to rate your resources so that you can have a collection like type:encyclopedia rating:>3. Also you may want to tag some as a way to exclude or include resources eg. type:commentary ANDNOT mytag:Notes. I apply the Notes tag to type:commentary resources that I do not consider to be commentaries.
No, what you got is not mixed. It's just that Rosie has different columns displayed than you do. I did this collection and my results are very similar to yours. If you right click on the column headers you can add or remove whatever column you want to see. You can also drag and drop to rearrange the columns.
No, I didn't get any different a kind of collection than you did. Yours are not mixed. They are all of type Encyclopedia, just as mine are. If you make the "Type" column in your library visible (if it's not so already; right-click on a column heading and be sure the check mark beside "Type" is checked), you will see that the resources in your collection are all of the same type, namely Encyclopedia. If you open the ones you think don't belong in this collection, you will understand why Logos made the decision to categorize them all as Encyclopedia, even though many of them do not have Encyclopedia in their title. What you're thinking is mixed is the Titles column, but of course the Titles are all going to be different.
EDIT: I see Kevin beat me to it with essentially this same answer.
Very blessed brothers and sisters ,thank you ,now I am not able to understand even a word,it is here 30 min ,after 1 o'clock ,that means it is Saturday here ,I am going to sleep ,I hope I am going to understand later.
When I set up my bible collection I only get 8 bibles. I know there is a lot more than that. I have the platinum library
Ok, Sam - tell us how you set up your bible collection (I nearly choked when you said 8!)
Here is a video for you, Tes. Maybe this will make it clearer than words could:
http://www.screencast.com/t/dxjupKhZ
Very blessed brothers and sisters ,thank you ,now I am not able to understand even a word,it is here 30 min ,after 1 o'clock ,that means it is Saturday here ,I am going to sleep ,I hope I am going to understand later. Here is a video for you, Tes. Maybe this will make it clearer than words could: http://www.screencast.com/t/dxjupKhZ
Thank you Rosie,you have explained it to me very well it works.Now what is your recommendation to organize all the rest of my resources,what title should I give ,what is the category? And if I have to add a new resource ,how do I do it?should I go again the whole process or or the resource will recognize to which it belongs?
Again once I have created collection won't it be saved? I have typed commentary and I have tried to search it ,but the collections on this category didn't show up.
Now what is your recommendation to organize all the rest of my resources,what title should I give ,what is the category? And if I have to add a new resource ,how do I do it?should I go again the whole process or or the resource will recognize to which it belongs?
Collections are dynamic, which means they automatically will include any new resources you purchase in the future that match the same rule. So if you make a collection for Encyclopedias, you don't have to worry. All your encyclopedias will be in it from now on.
You can see what all the other types in your library are by clicking the Type column heading, which will sort and group your library by Type. If you want to, you can make a collection for each of the other types, but I wonder why you need to? You would only use them if you wanted to restrict a search to that collection. But if it's just to organize your resources -- use the Library capabilities. It can already organize your resources by Type for you, when you click on the Type column heading.
Again once I have created collection won't it be saved?
You don't need to save a collection. It will be saved automatically when you click the X to close the Collections tab.
I have typed commentary and I have tried to search it ,but the collections on this category didn't show up.
Please explain. Did you create a collection for commentaries? Did you use type:commentary for the rule? Then I'm not sure what you mean by "the collections on this category didn't show up." Are you trying to find collections that have the word "commentary" in their name, using the Find box in the Open menu?
When I set up my bible collection I only get 8 bibles. I know there is a lot more than that. I have the platinum library Ok, Sam - tell us how you set up your bible collection (I nearly choked when you said 8!)
Thanks for the help dave i went by the above100%
Sam
So - just to be clear - does your collection definition look like the screenshot below?
and if you type the same thing into the range box in your library what does it show in terms of number of resource?
Graham
Sam So - just to be clear - does your collection definition look like the screenshot below? and if you type the same thing into the range box in your library what does it show in terms of number of resource? Graham
thanks Graham it does now. Since i have no knowledge what so ever of Greek and Hebrew and with the resources showing only Greek and Hebrew and no English is their a easy way to eliminate the Greek and Hebrew resources that have no English involved? i know about the add and minus tool but i am trying avoid having to open each and every resource to see if it contains and English
Good to see that its working..
There is a "languages" field associated with the resources which allows you to do what you want.
Try building a collection with the string "type:bible AND lang:english"
You can then fine-tune it using the "minus resources" option if you need to.
Hope this makes sense.
WOW thanks Graham i now have 34 English bibles. what would this dumb boy do without this forum and good people like you
Hi Sam, you're welcome.
Glad to know it's now working for you
WOW thanks Graham i now have 34 English bibles.
Sam,
If you're just setting out with collections, you might find these two tutorial videos helpful:
Now what is your recommendation to organize all the rest of my resources,what title should I give ,what is the category? And if I have to add a new resource ,how do I do it?should I go again the whole process or or the resource will recognize to which it belongs? Collections are dynamic, which means they automatically will include any new resources you purchase in the future that match the same rule. So if you make a collection for Encyclopedias, you don't have to worry. All your encyclopedias will be in it from now on. You can see what all the other types in your library are by clicking the Type column heading, which will sort and group your library by Type. If you want to, you can make a collection for each of the other types, but I wonder why you need to? You would only use them if you wanted to restrict a search to that collection. But if it's just to organize your resources -- use the Library capabilities. It can already organize your resources by Type for you, when you click on the Type column heading. Again once I have created collection won't it be saved? You don't need to save a collection. It will be saved automatically when you click the X to close the Collections tab. I have typed commentary and I have tried to search it ,but the collections on this category didn't show up. Please explain. Did you create a collection for commentaries? Did you use type:commentary for the rule? Then I'm not sure what you mean by "the collections on this category didn't show up." Are you trying to find collections that have the word "commentary" in their name, using the Find box in the Open menu?
Dear Rosie,thank you now I have understood it.and thank you all of you.
I would be interested, if anyone else would like to share, more example collections. I have used the Example Collections previously referenced to get started, but could use some more ideas on how to break them out. For those of us who are a little slow, it would be great if we could get the "Rule" and then make the adjustments of adding and excluding. Plus, having to break a train of thought of study to try and set up a collection as you realize you should have already come up with before your study makes it more difficult to accomplish.
There are several examples here: http://wiki.logos.com/Example_Collections
I haven't made a single collection in L4...and though I might at some point, at present I have no plan to do so. I do "entire library" searches (unless I want to search just a single resource) and trust my own ability to determine what to look at in the results.
That's fine if you don't mind paging through lots of results. The problem comes when Logos determines the ranking of hundreds of results above the ones you might find if you'd narrowed your search down to the more relevant resources for you. Many people give up paging through search results after two or three pages worth. If you've got the patience to go through all 4000+ results looking for the good ones, my hat's off to you.
Given some of our discussions on other threads, I'm tempted to suggest that if you're not using collections, you not getting the most out of Logos 4 at all. Perhaps that's partly why you don't get as much aout of L4 as some others do. [:)] Collections are about far more than limiting searches (though they're useful there too). Collections can also be of great help in the Passage Guide, and in Parallel Resources, and can lead to significant productivity gains.
Collections are about far more than limiting searches (though they're useful there too). Collections can also be of great help in the Passage Guide, and in Parallel Resources, and can lead to significant productivity gains.
Uh-oh. I think I might have to run off to watch another video. I've got a fair number of collections but use them (exclusively ?) for searches. I'm not sure how they relate to the passage guide. And while I know they somehow relate to parallel resources, I've stayed completely away from that feature because there was some feature with the same or a similar name in L3 that never made any sense to me.
Donnie
Collections can also be of great help in the Passage Guide
The problem of using them in the PG is that the results are totally random (as far as I can tell).
I'll be doing a collections video in the next few weeks (my screencast software is currently broken, unfortunately).
So briefly, for the time being:
I've stayed completely away from that feature because there was some feature with the same or a similar name in L3 that never made any sense to me.
I also didn't use it in L3 ... but look into it again. In L4 it is a very easy way to spin through a collection.
Within a section the logic is often baffling. But by using collections you can have your results in logical sections.
The problem of using them in the PG is that the results are totally random (as far as I can tell). Within a section the logic is often baffling. But by using collections you can have your results in logical sections.
I think the order takes into account your prioritization. But yes, for resources that aren't in your prioritization list, I guess they do show up in random order in the PG. But that's within your control. Just prioritize all your commentaries (and other resources that you'll want to have in a PG) in some order that makes more logical sense to you.
Here are two screen prints. One is of a collection that I have in the PG, and the other is of my prioritized items. As you can see, the list is not ordered by my prioritized items. The list of items in the PG is completely worthless for me.
PG:
prioritized items:
The items should be listed by my prioritized items, and each hit within each source should be sorted by something (alphabetical, page number, etc...)
Yes indeed, that looks pretty useless. I tried a similar PG on my machine and it also is not sorted by priority or alphabetically, and as with yours the different hits within the same resource are not even grouped together. This is buggy or indicates a lack of design.
This is buggy or indicates a lack of design.
I believe Logos has said they use a relevance routine to create the order.
This is buggy or indicates a lack of design. I believe Logos has said they use a relevance routine to create the order.
MJ...you left the "ir" off of irrelevance...
[:P]
[Y]
Actually, all this is perfectly logical (though that's not to say it doesn't need improvement).
When you add a Collections section to your PG, Logos basically searches in that collection for the reference you've specified. It does a ranked search, which searches by relevancy, not by prioritisation. If you compare the screenshot below, you'll see what I mean:
For myself, I rarely find adding a Collection section to the PG helpful. For looking at dictionaries, I would use the topics section instead.
Actually, all this is perfectly logical
Hi Mark, it all depends on how you look at logical.
Is it logical to provide results that does not make any sense to the user? Is it logical to provide results that the user cannot use? This is one of the reasons why I still have to use L3. I have three collections that I use in PG, and in L3 the results are returned grouped by resource. I just used dictionaries in my example because it is the first collection listed in my PG.
As it comes to dictionaries, I always check AYBD first. Then I will check EBD, and then I will check the ISBE. I almost never use Smith or Nelson. Still, Smith and Nelson are somehow ranked above AYBD.
I will say that the items listed by their, as David said, by their irrelevance.
I would use the topics section instead.
I have the same issue with topics, it uses resources that I do not like. It the above example, the topic section does not have anything from AYBD for Nicodemus. For me, the topic section is just as irrelevant.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
