Bug or Design Issue: Can't have a Bible in the Commentary Section of a Passage Guide

I'd have expected this to work. I'll have to play with it to see what's wrong or if there is a work around.

Mark Smith

Anyone else run into this? Is there something wrong with this suggestion?

I don't have this resource so haven't run into this situation. All my Bibles are text only so I can't see a need for this feature.

Work-around? Sure, link the Expanded Bible to your preferred version and keep both open in your layout. Or, make it the target for hyperlinks and click on the Bible reference in the first section of the passage guide to open to that passage (assuming the Expanded Bible is open). Make the Expanded Bible your first prioritized Bible and then when you click on the reference in the Passage Guide it will open. Put the Expanded Bible on your tool bar and click on it to open to the passage in your Bible that is open to the passage.

I guess this is a unique situation because of the nature of the Expanded Bible but since there are a number of ways to get to it easily I doubt there's a need to fix up the passage guide to do this. Just my two cents.

See #2

Oops! I forgot to attach the screen shot. [:$]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301428#Comment_301428

This is truly odd:

The collection of similar resources have 2 with a type of Bible and 4 with a type of Bible Commentary.

When I treat the collection as Commentary in the PG the 3 applicable Bible Commentaries are shown; the Bibles are not.

When I treat the collection as Collection the 3 applicable Bible Commentaries are shown; one of the Bibles is shown; the other, The Expanded Bible does not show. This is clearly a BUG (Big Ugly Goof)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301450#Comment_301450

This is clearly a BUG (Big Ugly Goof)

Thanks for your research and confirming the problem! [:D]

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301450#Comment_301450

When I treat the collection as Commentary in the PG the 3 applicable Bible Commentaries are shown; the Bibles are not.

When I treat the collection as Collection the 3 applicable Bible Commentaries are shown; one of the Bibles is shown; the other, The Expanded Bible does not show. This is clearly a BUG (Big Ugly Goof)

Which part is the bug? It's not clear to me.

The Commentary only shows resources of type "Bible Commentary" or "Bible Notes" that have a bible index for the entered passage.

The Collection section searches any type of resource for bible references in the text. It does not show hits on indexed references (i.e. it is a text search and not a reference look-up, like the Commentary section is). Does The Expanded Bible have reference links in the text that should show hits in the Collection section? I don't own that resource.

This sounds like a design request to me. Perhaps a Bible section that shows Bibles with that indexed reference, that could be defined by a collection. I would use that feature. It would provide quick access to more the esoteric resources of type "Bible".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301483#Comment_301483

This sounds like a design request to me. Perhaps a Bible section that shows links to the passage in different bibles that could be defined by a collection.

Similar to resources of type:"bible apparatus" which only appear in the Apparatuses section.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301483#Comment_301483

Perhaps a Bible section that shows Bibles with that indexed reference

If I am understanding this correctly, it will not address the issue presented. We have enough different kinds of sections let's not add another similar one, when what appears to be a minor correction will do what is required.

One cannot draw a sharp distinction between Bibles, Bible Commentaries and/or Bible Notes. They all grade into each other. The Expanded Bible is an excellent example of this. It is more commentary than Bible in my opinion.

The issue appears to me to be an unnecessary constraint on the commentary section of the passage guide. The only constraint should be the presence of absence of a Bible index. Allow the user to make any additional constraints by how they define their collections or tag their resources. The default for the commentary section should I believe remain the same (let it have the current restrictions).

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301500#Comment_301500

The Expanded Bible is an excellent example of this. It is more commentary than Bible in my opinion.

If that is truly the case, then I would think that the proper solution is to get the type changed for that resource. I think it would be confusing to allow Bibles in general in the Commentaries section.

But I do think adding a Bible section is worthwhile, since there are many uses for it:

Septuagint and other alternate language translations.
Clausal Outlines
Syntactic Bibles
Discourse/High Definition Bibles
Even regular Bibles. I think a list of links to the top 5 Bibles is a missing feature of the Passage Guide.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301501#Comment_301501

I think it would be confusing to allow Bibles in general in the Commentaries section.

Well it would totally under the user's control. Leave the default for the commentaries section alone. If someone sticks a Bible in with commentaries when building a collection they may have good reason.

Instead of a "Bibles" sections. Give us a section that would allow any Bible indexed resource.

The way I am seeing it, if there was a Bibles Section, then I would have to look in two places to find all my Bible indexed resources related to translation issues. (At least translation issues as I have defined that term.) Some would be in a Bibles section the others in a Commentary section.

If you look at both the Expanded Bible and the UBS Translators Handbooks, I think you will see why they should be grouped together. Let's drop the artificial distinction between Bibles and commentaries.

P.S. Some say there are no translations of the Koran, only commentaries on it in other languages. When I see the great divergence between English language translations, and between English, Yup'ik, Spanish, and French translations, I begin to believe they have a point. Sometimes it is hard to believe they were translated from the same source language. They really look like commentaries on the text, and sometimes in need of improvement.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301483#Comment_301483

Does The Expanded Bible have reference links in the text that should show hits in the Collection section?

deleted

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301515#Comment_301515

Let's drop the artificial distinction between Bibles and commentaries.

I understand the point but the distinction between Bibles and commentaries is in no way artificial. What is a bit artificial is calling the Expanded Bible a Bible. If all the notes that are included in-line were relegated to the 'bottom of the page' then we'd have a 'study Bible' and you could have the separate notes show up in the PG commentary section.

If Logos is going to do anything I think it should do one of two things:

1. Reclassify the Expanded Bible into Type:Bible Notes (that will upset some folks)

2. Do as Todd has suggested and create a Bibles section. Frankly I think that would be dandy and could replace the worthless Compare Versions section with a genuine Text Comparison section.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301483#Comment_301483

Perhaps a Bible section that shows Bibles with that indexed reference, that could be defined by a collection.

All I am saying is the the two Bibles in my example should exhibit the same behavior. That they don't is either a bug in software or in the coding of the resource.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301483#Comment_301483

Does The Expanded Bible have reference links in the text that should show hits in the Collection section? I don't own that resource.

Yes it does. Here is a sample from Titus 1

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301523#Comment_301523

What is a bit artificial is calling the Expanded Bible a Bible.

Interesting that you say that if you do not have the resource.

Frankly I think that would be dandy and could replace the worthless Compare Versions section with a genuine Text Comparison section.

Excellent, I would love to see a better Compare Versions section. However, that does address to problem at hand.

Anything that has a Bible index should be able to be searched by that index along with any other resource that has a Bible index. The logical place for this is in the passage guide. Either allow all Bible indexed resources in the current Commentaries section or implement a new section that has no restrictions other than having a Bible index.

{It is after 1 am where I am. Will check back after sunrise. [|-)] }

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301523#Comment_301523

the worthless Compare Versions section with a genuine Text Comparison section.

I have no problem with this in either format. What are you looking for it to do?

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301525#Comment_301525

Perhaps a Bible section that shows Bibles with that indexed reference, that could be defined by a collection.

All I am saying is the the two Bibles in my example should exhibit the same behavior.

The two "Bibles" you refer to seem have more than just Bible content in them, and only one gets hits when searching the text for the Luke 18:1-8 reference in your example.

If only one has a reference in that range in its text, then only that one should show up in the search results (which is what the Collections section is).

I don't have either one so I can't run examples to demonstrate, but it doesn't follow that both should show up in the Collections section just because they are both Bibles.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301549#Comment_301549

I don't have either one so I can't run examples to demonstrate, but it doesn't follow that both should show up in the Collections section just because they are both Bibles.

Melissa, the core problem is that the two Bibles in my example display different behavior when their behavior should be parallel. I don't know whether it is the code or the resources that cause the difference but the difference makes it difficult to use them. [Personally, I'd label them all Bible Commentary].

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301523#Comment_301523

Reclassify the Expanded Bible into Type:Bible Notes (that will upset some folks)

Agreed. Me included.

If that is truly the case, then I would
think that the proper solution is to get the type changed for that
resource. I think it would be confusing to allow Bibles in general in
the Commentaries section.

Agreed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301523#Comment_301523

1. Reclassify the Expanded Bible into Type:Bible Notes (that will upset some folks)

Similar works are classified as Bible Commentary. The whole set - Outline Bible, Thematic Bible, Summarized Bible etc. should be in the same class whatever that class is. Or, at the very least, they should behave in the same manner in the PG.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301681#Comment_301681

Reclassify the Expanded Bible into Type:Bible Notes (that will upset some folks)

Agreed. Me included.

I would be upset if the Amplified Bible was reclassified. Whilst not as expansive as the Expanded Bible in the passage shown above, it is still a (verbose) Bible! But, hey, The Message is definitely a Commentary[;)]

If that is truly the case, then I would
think that the proper solution is to get the type changed for that
resource. I think it would be confusing to allow Bibles in general in
the Commentaries section.

Agreed.

It is not necessary to change the type - if bibles were allowed it would not affect the results from my commentary collections in PG!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301722#Comment_301722

Similar works are classified as Bible Commentary. The whole set - Outline Bible, Thematic Bible, Summarized Bible etc. should be in the same class whatever that class is. Or, at the very least, they should behave in the same manner in the PG.

Whether they are classified as Bible or Bible Commentary they will behave differently when included in the Commentaries and Collections sections. The former looks only for bible milestones whilst the latter looks only for bible references (e.g. a <Jn 8:44> Search). The former provides articles specific to the passage whilst the latter provides references distributed throughout the resource.

Just for kicks I included the RI Bibles in a Collections section:-

Most of the references were in footnotes, but I was surprised to discover that the NLT has a Bible Verse Finder section, and the reference was found in a (relevant) article on Satan.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301742#Comment_301742

Whether they are classified as Bible or Bible Commentary they will behave differently when included in the Commentaries and Collections sections.

I agree. I should have used the term "consistently" as it is inconsistency within the group I call "faux Bibles" that causes the problem.I don't care which way they work - only that they work in the same (consistent) way.

Personally, I would like to have the Text Comparison and Passage Analysis tools as sections within the Passage Guide as that is how I actually use them. It follows that the idea of a Bible section has some appeal as well. But my main concern is that a resource work in a predictable manner without having to check indexing, resource type and test options to have it work in the same manner as similar resources. I do recognize that older resources will have quirks until they are updated to current standards but in this case we are talking of a new resource.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301755#Comment_301755

But my main concern is that a resource work in a predictable manner without having to check indexing, resource type and test options to have it work in the same manner as similar resources. I do recognize that older resources will have quirks until they are updated to current standards but in this case we are talking of a new resource.

So have you moved away from regarding the inconsistency as a BUG?

When I treat the collection as Collection the 3 applicable Bible
Commentaries are shown; one of the Bibles is shown; the other, The
Expanded Bible does not show. This is clearly a BUG (Big Ugly Goof).

It could only be a bug in PG if the Expanded Bible contains the reference e.g. you can find it with a Basic Search for <Lk 18:1-8>

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301766#Comment_301766

So have you moved away from regarding the inconsistency as a BUG?

No, I always consider inconsistency as a bug - in fact it is often the first visible symptom of a bug.

It could only be a bug in PG if the Expanded Bible contains the reference e.g. you can find it with a Basic Search for <Lk 18:1-8>

You are ignoring that I said it was a bug either in the code or in the resource. (or think I said)

The point is that we have as a forum agree that when a suggestion is offered we don't shoot it down no matter how silly we think it is. The same should be true of bugs. Frank encountered behavior that was not what he expected and was to me inconsistent - both characteristics of potential bugs. We, in fact no one, should waste so much time defending the facts. Neither Frank nor myself missed a feature - no one has shown a screen shot of how to get the expected behavior. Thus it is appropriate to report it to Logos as a problem. It is up to Logos to decide if they put it as a bug to developers, bug to resource editors, intended behavior, or future enhancement.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301733#Comment_301733

t is not necessary to change the type - if bibles were allowed it would not affect the results from my commentary collections in PG!

[Y] Yes! And I can see no reason why any Bible indexed resource should not be allowed in the commentaries section of the passage guide. I have yet to read anything here that foresaw incorrect results from this suggest fix. If someone does not what to search some Bibles in the commentary sections no one is going to force them to.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301742#Comment_301742

Whether they are classified as Bible or Bible Commentary they will behave differently when included in the Commentaries and Collections sections. The former looks only for bible milestones whilst the latter looks only for bible references (e.g. a <Jn 8:44> Search). The former provides articles specific to the passage whilst the latter provides references distributed throughout the resource.

Indeed. I recently posted my favorite study layout to the general forum. I make extensive use of these differences in the passage guides that are part of that layout. I will often look through the same "shelf of books" (collection) both looking for articles on a passage, and looking for scattered references to I am studying.

I just think that all books with bible milestones should be searchable using a single section in a passage guide. If I mix Bibles and commentaries together that is my choice

Melissa Snyder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301557#Comment_301557

I don't have either one so I can't run examples to demonstrate, but it doesn't follow that both should show up in the Collections section just because they are both Bibles.

Melissa, the core problem is that the two Bibles in my example display different behavior when their behavior should be parallel. I don't know whether it is the code or the resources that cause the difference but the difference makes it difficult to use them. [Personally, I'd label them all Bible Commentary].

I've got The Expanded Bible: New Testament, which uses the "Bible" type, and The Outline Bible, which uses the "Bible Commentary" type side-by-side on my system. To me it is very obvious why one is a Bible and one is a Commentary. The Expanded Bible has the full Bible text with some inline comments in brackets included. In its Table of Contents pane it lists Bible book names and Chapters as do other Bibles. The Outline Bible does not include the full Bible text. It has reference links to Bible text, but otherwise it just includes commentary outlines. Its TOC pane lists Bible book names, but under each are Section Outlines, not Chapters. These are completely different types of books.

So I agree that this is a discussion about Passage Guide design and functionality, and since there is a suggestion to change it, the suggestion should be added to Logos UserVoice.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302013#Comment_302013

It's the Expanded Bible and the Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis that should work in parallel as they are both type "Bible"; the titles that are "Bible Commentaries" all work as expected.

Tom's suggestion was that all five be able to work in the same way - an excellent idea but not the problem.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302036#Comment_302036

Similar works are classified as Bible Commentary. The whole set -
Outline Bible, Thematic Bible, Summarized Bible etc. should be in the
same class whatever that class is. Or, at the very least, they should
behave in the same manner in the PG.

They shouldn't necessarily be in the same class; if some are organized by Bible reference and others aren't.

If I'm understanding correctly, the manner of behavior of any book, regardless of its type, in the Collections section of a PG should be "does this resource mention the reference being searched for in the PG?" (or mention some reference range which contains/overlaps with the one in question). So several books of the same type might be behaving correctly, in the same manner, and yet some might show up in the PG results and others not -- simply because some of them might mention the reference in question and other don't happen to.

All I am saying is the the two Bibles in my example should exhibit
the same behavior. That they don't is either a bug in software or in the
coding of the resource.

It's the Expanded Bible and the
Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis that should work in parallel as they
are both type "Bible"; the titles that are "Bible Commentaries" all work
as expected.

Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis
does happen to mention the reference Luke 18:1-8 (in two places), thus
it shows up in your PG when you run it on that reference. Expanded Bible: New Testament
doesn't mention Luke 18:1-8 (though it includes the Bible text of that
reference), so it doesn't show up in the PG. Has nothing to do with what type they are classified as (though I do believe the former is misclassified, but that's beside the point). I could easily
find you two resources that are both correctly classified as Commentaries,
one of which mentions some particular verse reference and the
other doesn't. The former would show up in this particular PG results in
the Collections section and the other wouldn't, and that wouldn't be a
problem or a bug with either of the resources. Just a coincidence.

Incidentally, I believe this is the crux of what Todd was trying to get at in paragraphs #2 and #3 of this response of his: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/40426/301483.aspx#301483 which got overlooked in the flurry of responses.

As a different issue: the Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis isn't actually a Bible and shouldn't be classified as such. It doesn't have Bible text content, doesn't have a Bible index, isn't addressable
by Bible reference. (For that reason it also can't be classified as a Bible Commentary or Bible Notes, either, as both of those have Bible indexes.) This misclassification is totally oblique to the problem you're complaining
about, MJ. I think the particular instance you ran into would not have happened if the type were correct, though, since you wouldn't have been tempted to include this resource in your Faux Bibles collection.

For those who don't have it, here's an excerpt from the Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis:

This should not be classified as a Bible. Not sure what it is, though. It's a weird beast. I'd probably classify it as Monograph like Nave's and other Topical Bibles. But there should perhaps be a type for Topical Bibles, indexed by headword. But then there's also the Zondervan Dictionary of Bible Themes which is also a Topical Bible but it is classified as an Encyclopedia...

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302207#Comment_302207

But I do think adding a Bible section is worthwhile, since there are many uses for it:

Septuagint and other alternate language translations.

Clausal Outlines

Syntactic Bibles

Discourse/High Definition Bible

[Y] I see no reason for it not being there now

Even regular Bibles. I think a list of links to the top 5 Bibles is a missing feature of the Passage Guide.

[Y] This should be a section on its own, by default first in list on passage guide

it doesn't follow that both should show up in the Collections section just because they are both Bibles.

I think it would be confusing to allow Bibles in general in the Commentaries section.

Agreed.

[Y]

Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis
does happen to mention the reference Luke 18:1-8 (in two places), thus
it shows up in your PG when you run it on that reference. Expanded Bible: New Testament
doesn't mention Luke 18:1-8 (though it includes the Bible text of that
reference), so it doesn't show up in the PG. Has nothing to do with what type they are classified as (though I do believe the former is misclassified, but that's beside the point). I could easily
find you two resources that are both correctly classified as Commentaries,
one of which mentions some particular verse reference and the
other doesn't. The former would show up in this particular PG results in
the Collections section and the other wouldn't, and that wouldn't be a
problem or a bug with either of the resources. Just a coincidence.

Incidentally, I believe this is the crux of what Todd was trying to get at in paragraphs #2 and #3 of this response of his: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/40426/301483.aspx#301483 which got overlooked in the flurry of responses.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302207#Comment_302207

As a different issue: the Thematic Bible: Topical Analysis isn't actually a Bible and shouldn't be classified as such. It doesn't have Bible text content, doesn't have a Bible index, isn't addressable
by Bible reference.

That is a mistype that should not have occurred. I notice that it has been raised in Metadata Correction Proposals, and sincerely hope that Logos will very soon clear up the gross errors that have been allowed to accumulate for the last 2 years.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302207#Comment_302207

I think the particular instance you ran into would not have happened if the type were correct, though, since you wouldn't have been tempted to include this resource in your Faux Bibles collection.

Actually my faux Bible collection contains primarily books of type "Bible Commentary" that do not serve as commentaries for my purposes. I also have no problem with making a collection of expanded Bibles (Expanded New Testament, Wuest, Harris, Amplified...) especially if said collection can appear in the PG - or the Text comparison tool could appear in the PG.

My concern is that a class of resources behave in a consistent manner. If Logos chooses to move the Thematic Bible to Bible Commentary with the other half of the set, that would be one solution.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/302379#Comment_302379

My concern is that a class of resources behave in a consistent manner.

Martha, I agree with you in general that resources of the same type should behave consistently according to their type (e.g., Bibles should navigate in the same way, should function properly when linked; Calendar Devotionals should all have a way to get to Today's date when opened, etc.). But in this particular case the "consistent manner" you're looking for is for them either to both show up in the PG or both not show up in the PG, which isn't a valid way of judging whether two resources behave consistently. Leave alone for the moment the particular books in question. There is a typing error in one of them, but that is beside the point and is obscuring the fundamental miscommunication we're having.

Here's perhaps a better illustration of what I'm trying to say: Here's my collection of scholarly monographs about the book of Leviticus.

Whoops? Where's that last one? It didn't show up in the PG. You're saying that's problematic according to your definition of behaving consistently. I'm saying you can have resources that are the same type and are both correctly classified according to that type, and yet do not appear to behave in a "consistent manner" according to your criterion: two of them show up in the PG results and the other one doesn't. Are you saying this is a bug? Is it not rather because two of them happen to mention Lev 17:3 and the other one of the same type doesn't? Isn't this the behavior you'd want to see? That the PG correctly tells you which resources do have a mention of the verse you're looking for? This is why we don't think "showing up in the PG or not" is a valid measure of "behaving consistently."

If I'm misinterpreting what your definition of "behaving consistently" is, I apologize, but you keep coming back to saying the same thing without explaining why you believe that they should both show up in the PG or both not show up in the PG if they're of the same type. You say it's because they should behave consistently, but don't you see why that sort of consistency you're looking for isn't actually a good thing in this case?