Greek Majority Text W/ Sympathetic Highlighting

No, I don't think so. At least my Byzantine 2005 doesn't (and nor do my three Received Texts if it comes to it). Logos' Greek Texts page doesn't appear to include any other resources which may do instead.

Rick,

This good news. But I'm getting increasingly confused by the number of 'old' resources in my library that have been seemingly replaced by newer versions, but the old version remains in use. I'd looked at the 1894 Scrivener's for example, which doesn't have sympathetic highlighting. I've got a number of confusing 'duplicate' resources, particular with original texts:

• 
  
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : SESB 2.0 Version and


Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : SESB 2.0 Version
• Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia—Morphologically Tagged Edition,
  
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : with Westminster 4.0 Morphology, and


Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : with Westminster 4.2 Morphology
• 
  
The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament and The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament
• Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Editio XXVII
• 
  
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database and McReynolds English Interlinear and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear
• 
  
The New Testament in the Original Greek and


Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881) With Morphology

The NT Greek is a minefield, too. It's bad enough that there's already NA26, NA27 and UBS4, though I appreciate that's not your fault and I'm glad you support them all. But then we have competing morphologies. Again, not your fault. But the simpler way of naming new resources (e.g. The New Testament in the Original Greek) is confusing when put next to the 'old' way (e.g. Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881) With Morphology). It seems to me that the first resource is actually a W&H with Logos morphology. But how would I know?

It's also frustrating that I can have the UBS4 with Apparatus, or with Morphology, but not both, while I'm at it.

Sorry to winge, but it's getting rather confusing and the lack of serial resource associations isn't helping.

Thanks Rick, that's really helpful. Can I suggest a blog post in the future that includes this information and quickly compares the various morphologies that are available to us? Having said that, I do think it may have been better to upgrade the old resources, rather than create new ones. Less confusing all around, although I know it reduces the amount of NEW resources upgraders will feel they're getting.

To everyone else, in an earlier post Rick also recommended that we do away with

Yes, thank you Rick.  Very helpful.

But it also shows up the useless nature of the "Ranking."  On almost every one of these sets, the higher ranked item was the one suggested to be hidden.  It also does not seem to be subjectively worse, but objectively worse (older resource, missing morphology, etc.)

Would there be any way to get some information from Logos on the duplicate resources? I understand the desire to keep users of older versions from "breaking" but I would think that those of us who are paying top-dollar for the latest versions should not have to dig around to get rid of old versions.  I'm willing to hide the resources, but I think Logos should give me the information on them (after all, Logos knows the most about them).

Am I all wet on this?

No, you're right Fred. I would be very useful to have some kind of warning when we first opened a superseded resource. How can be expected to know which is the 'best' resource, particularly when the descriptions and titles give us no indication. I wouldn't want them automatically hidden though, as I can imagine users would differ on whether they wanted to do this.

Agreed.  I would think the best solution would be for Logos to create a list of the few categories (Greek Majority text, Greek Critical text, Hebrew Bible, etc) that hiding duplicative (but inferior) resources would be applicable.

Also - on NA27, I have 5: NA27, NA27 with GRAMCORD, NA27 with GRAMCORD and McReynolds English Interlinear, NA27 with McReynolds Interlinear, NA27 without Morphology. Should any be hidden? I am wondering why I need NA27  without Morphology if I have NA27 with Morphology, for instance. Unless there are differences int he text?

Last question! I have UBS4 with Interlinear and Morphology, and UBS4 with Morphology. Should I hide the one without Interlinear, any reason to keep it, are the texts otherwise identical?

Just to say that occasionally there are advantages in having or more two identical copies of bible resources, particularly that you can have different visual filters in different but functionally identical resources, but you can't have different visual filters in two copies of the same resource. For that reason I've kept most of my duplicates, even though I could (for example) turn off the interlinear and turn my NA27/Interlinear into a standard NA27. That said, I don't see much point in an NA27 without morphology…

Denise: I think you might have missed Rick's post above, which explains why Dominick hid what he did: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6544/50658.aspx#50658

Thanks Mark and Denise for your replies.

Given I am a person who both likes his cake and enjoys simultaneously consuming it (I would have loved being in the story at Matt 14:20!!), here is what I did - I unhid them all again, and tagged them all "Hidden".  That way if I ever am unsure what resource I am looking at I can check the tag, or I can easily create a Collection with/without them, yest they are still available!