Basic Search for God in All Text.
Note the vastly different results from an implied rating:0 collection with my Unrated collection (below).
The first results reflect the resources shown in Library when sorted by Rating (which is incorrect).
I trust that this issue(s) will be fixed in the next beta as it arose from the experiment in Alpha 5.
There was a bug that could allow a personal rating of 0. That's been fixed now, but the old ratings remain. The data will be cleaned up in the next update.
Does that mean if I rate a resource >=1 accidentally, I cannot revert it to zero or Clear it?
Will current ratings be preserved? How will I know what has been "cleaned up"?
No.
Yes.
The items that will be "cleaned up" are the seven resources in your original screenshot.
Don't worry: "rating:0" in the Collections Editor will still work. This is just fixing the implied "rating:0" collection from your first post.
And this will also fix the display of resources implied as "rating:0" in the "Entire Library" screen shot (when I have 319 that should appear before my one star resources)?
The Rating column displays your rating (if there is one), and the community rating (if not). Sorting on the rating column (in the next beta) will sort by the rating that is displayed.
The Rating column displays your rating (if there is one), and the community rating (if not).
For some of us that renders the Rating column useless - community rating has value only if you are a member of that community. Your academics, for example, would rank things very differently than a Bible college trained preacher of 30 years. In the forums I can identify a community whose ratings I value - and a community for which the inverse of their ratings better reflects my own - and, of course, most people fall somewhere in between depending upon the top.
BTW - I prefer to be able to set my rating to zero and am dismayed that was considered a bug. May I ask to have it modified to permit negative numbers if I can't use zero?[:D]
You can set your rating to zero. The issue was because unrated resources have a rating of NULL whereas resources where you've cleared the rating have their rating as 0. Searching for rating:0 actually needs to search for rating:null OR rating:0, which it wasn't doing.
Like Martha, I'd be very disappointed if I wasn't able to sort resources by my rating.
You can set your rating to zero.
Rereading I see I'd misread. This community thing is getting out of hand - Logos users are a big group of communities - if they try to shove us together we'll behave like magnetic marbles.[:P]
if they try to shove us together we'll behave like magnetic marbles.
Especially the US Baptists [:D]
if they try to shove us together we'll behave like magnetic marbles
…or like my kids in the car: "DONT TOUCH ME!" [:)]
And this will also fix the display of resources implied as "rating:0" in the "Entire Library" screen shot (when I have 319 that should appear before my one star resources)? The Rating column displays your rating (if there is one), and the community rating (if not). Sorting on the rating column (in the next beta) will sort by the rating that is displayed.
That still doesn't answer my question. Will all my 319 rating:0 resources be displayed before MY rating:1 resources?
I'd be extremely disappointed to find them mixed amongst MY rated resources because of their community rating. I think we deserve an option on the handling of "rating:0" resources in MY Library when it is clear that some of us have no regard for community ratings.
That still doesn't answer my question. Will all my 319 rating:0 resources be displayed before MY rating:1 resources? I'd be extremely disappointed to find them mixed amongst MY rated resources because of their community rating. I think we deserve an option on the handling of "rating:0" resources in MY Library when it is clear that some of us have no regard for community ratings.
There's not really such a thing as rating a resource with 0 stars. (You can set a rating from 1-5, or clear the rating, which returns it to the "unrated" state.)
We've preserved the "rating:0" search, because that's what Logos 4 did. (That truly is a "common-law feature".) It doesn't actually mean those resources have a rating of 0, it's purely for backwards compatibility with a Logos 4 bug.
The Rating column displays your rating (if there is one), and the community rating (if not). Sorting on the rating column will sort by the rating that is displayed.
Sorting on the rating column will sort by the rating that is displayed.
Which is incredibly annoying, I'm afraid. If I sort by rating, I do not want files that I haven't rated appearing at the top of my list.
There's not really such a thing as rating a resource with 0 stars. ...We've preserved the "rating:0" search, because that's what Logos 4 did. (That truly is a "common-law feature".)
You have preserved the use of rating:0, which has always been an acceptable designation for our unrated (NULL) resources but there is no longer an implied collection (or choice) of rating:0 in the Search menus. Now we have inconsistency. But to take it further and impose a community rating value when I want to sort MY Library by MY rating is unacceptable because Logos has arbitrarily chosen to disregard a true "common-law feature".
but there is no longer an implied collection (or choice) of rating:0 in the Search menus
I was unaware that this bug existed in Logos 4 until now. We will not be "unfixing" it.
Now we have inconsistency.
I don't understand this claim. Logos 4 was inconsistent between the Library (rating:0 found all unrated resources) and Search (implied rating:0 found resources that had been rated then cleared). We have fixed this inconsistency.
But to take it further and impose a community rating value when I want to sort MY Library by MY rating is unacceptable because Logos has arbitrarily chosen to disregard a true "common-law feature".
I understand that you're not interested in community data, particularly when it is merged with your data. (I'm assuming it would be OK (or tolerable) if the Rating column only showed your rating, and there was a second, optional Community Rating column that showed community data, just like the Community Tags and My Tags columns.) I will pass this feedback along to the UI designer.
(I'm assuming it would be OK (or tolerable) if the Rating column only showed your rating, and there was a second, optional Community Rating column that showed community data, just like the Community Tags and My Tags columns.)
That would be good for me
(I'm assuming it would be OK (or tolerable) if the Rating column only showed your rating, and there was a second, optional Community Rating column that showed community data, just like the Community Tags and My Tags columns.) I will pass this feedback along to the UI designer.
That's fine - it's nice to make them available to those who want them.
(I'm assuming it would be OK (or tolerable) if the Rating column only showed your rating, and there was a second, optional Community Rating column that showed community data, just like the Community Tags and My Tags columns.) I will pass this feedback along to the UI designer. That's fine - it's nice to make them available to those who want them.
Agreed.
Now we have inconsistency. I don't understand this claim. Logos 4 was inconsistent between the Library (rating:0 found all unrated resources) and Search (implied rating:0 found resources that had been rated then cleared). We have fixed this inconsistency.
It is inconsistent from a user perspective. Now we have to make a collection for rating:0 in order to search them because Logos fixed a "bug" by removing a "common-law feature"! If implied rating:0 gave incorrect search results why not fix that "bug"?
I understand that you're not interested in community data, particularly when it is merged with your data. (I'm assuming it would be OK (or tolerable) if the Rating column only showed your rating,
Yes + also sort by my rating i.e. retain full Logos4 compatibility for this (and for the size of the Library Find box).
This thread in the main Logos 5 forum would seem to add fuel to the idea of making personal and community ratings a separate column.
I support this.
