BUG, or "When did this change?" PG Commentaries now shows section name.

I am able to reproduce this and will send a case to Development for investigation.

I think it changed with 5.1. It certainly was never like this when L5 launched - and it's a horrible change. It's changed in the Cross References section too, where it's just as inappropriate. It's OK to do this in the Collections section, but not in the Commentaries or Cross References sections (which are look-ups not searches, and will therefore only return one result per resource, and therefore the resource name is what matters).

Just try finding the commentary you need at a glance in this lot:

Mark Barnes said:

It's OK to do this in the Collections section

I do understand that collections display more than one result from a book (and that is a good thing).  I believe that the resource should be listed first, and the user should be able to expanded to list the various hits within the resource. 

Andrew Batishko (Logos) said:

Our intent was to fix the formatting of the Collections section that is available in the Topic Guide.

I've never understood the Collections section in the Topic Guide, for two reasons:

1. It should give the same results as the definitions section, but it gives far fewer results.*
2. It has the same name as the Collections section in the PG, but an entirely different function (i.e. it's a lookup, not a search). That's confusing, I think. You'd be better off calling it Definitions.

* For example, on the topic of Resurrection, the collections section misses the articles from AYBD, DPL, DLNT, DNTB, LBD, EDBT and Easton's.

Thanks for the response.

It would be helpful if you could you briefly explain the relationship between the Topic section of Basic Search, the Definition section of the Topic Guide, the Collections section of the Topic Guide and how they all relate to the LCV (Logos Controlled Vocabulary). If I've understood things correctly, you're saying that:

• If you search for a word/phrase in the LCV, the topic section of basic search lists all the encyclopedia and concordance articles tagged with that word/phrase.
• That each entry from LCV can be used in a topic guide.
• That the definition section excludes concordances, whilst the collections section includes them.

While you're testing this, you might want to check whether the entry on Resurrection includes entries from the following resources (they're currently missing from the definition section of Topic Guide, but appear in search):

• Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
• Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
• Eerdmans Bible Dictionary
• Harpers Bible Dictionary
• Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary
• Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times
• Nelson's New Illustrate Bible Dictionary

There's also a bug in topics in search whereby some entries are duplicated or triplicated (e.g. Harper-Collins on Resurrection). It might be worth checking this bug hasn't come over into the TG as well.

Dave Hooton said:

allow all my prioritised resources

Dave Hooton said:

In fact nothing has changed since Beta 5, so hopefully those claims have yet to be implemented for us beta testers.

Andrew said they'd be implemented in beta 9.

Dave Hooton said:

So please rethink the need for a Collections section and allow all my prioritised resources, including Concordances, to be in Definitions

Please don't do that. The concordances have too many entries to be relevant, and they're not Definitions. If the Collections section will support Concordances, then those who want them can create a collection for them.

Andrew Batishko (Logos) said:

So, the first thing to understand… but still include the hand selected results you would expect to see.

Thanks for all this info. Better understanding the architecture, not only helps us use Logos more productively, but also helps us properly explain it to others. The logic you're implemented seems to make a great deal of sense, too.

Is is true to say that the Collections section in Topic Guide will use all resources with English headwords, regardless of what type they are, whereas the definitions section will only use resources that are LCV tagged, and of type dictionary, encyclopedia and lexicon?

Andrew Batishko (Logos) said:

The Definition section will use data in the LCV resource, not in your individual resources. This is a subtle distinction. If your LCV resource is updated with new references, but no other resources get updated, then you could still see new results coming back in the section. Beyond that, yes. Definition only returns results in resources of those types.

Thanks again for all the info. It's appreciated. But can you help us understand this subtle distinction?

I'd presumed that the LCV 'resource' (by which I presume you mean LCV.lbslcv) essentially mapped friendly topic names to LCV ids (so "Lord's Supper", "the Lord's Supper", "Holy Communion", "Communion" and "Eucharist" all get mapped to LordsSupper). Then individual articles within dictionaries would be tagged with topicid:LordsSupper. But judging from your reply, and from the size of the LCV.lbslcv file, that's obviously not the case.

Are you saying that instead, the LCV.lbslcv file matches LCV ids to individual resources and headwords (so there's no LCV tagging within the encyclopedia resource, but instead a lookup table in the LCV resource)?

So that when you're doing the Collections section, the query (in pseudo-SQL) is something like: SELECT SectionTitle, ResourceName FROM HeadwordIndex WHERE Headword IN (SELECT DISTINCT Headword FROM lcv WHERE lcvid='Resurrection'). In other words, to generate the Collections section you're going get a list of all the headwords used in dictionaries for that LCV topic, then return all the articles that match (or partially match?) those headwords?