Define Collection Using Boolean Logic

You have to have include a term that expresses all your library content e.g. myrating:>=0, myrating:<6. So you have:-

myrating:>=0 ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary)

EDIT: which is shorthand for  myrating:>=0  ANDNOT (type:bible OR type:dictionary)

You have to have include a term that expresses all your library content e.g. myrating:>=0, myrating:<6. So you have:-

myrating:>=0 ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary)

EDIT: which is shorthand for  myrating:>=0  ANDNOT (type:bible OR type:dictionary)

What Dave said. While keeping in mind that Logos has the peculiar distinction of defining "dictionary" as "encyclopedia."

You have to have include a term that expresses all your library content e.g. myrating:>=0, myrating:<6. So you have:-

myrating:>=0 ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary)

* ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary)

works just as well¹ and is quicker and easier to type.

¹ if you're running the latest version of Logos 5

What Dave said. While keeping in mind that Logos has the peculiar distinction of defining "dictionary" as "encyclopedia."

Yes!  Resources with "bible dictionary" or similar in their title are type:encyclopedia in the Library. type:dictionary is attributed to non-bible dictionaries like Concise Oxford or Merriam-Webster.

* ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary)

works just as well¹ and is quicker and easier to type.

The 5.2 beta spun its wheels for about 4 sec before listing the resources! It is OK for a Collection rule after first being generated (and cached?) but not efficient for ad hoc Library searches.

Thank you everybody. I used * ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary) and got exactly what I wanted.

The 5.2 beta spun its wheels for about 4 sec before listing the resources!

Logs, please.

And how many resources were matched by the filter?

works just as well¹ and is quicker and easier to type.

¹ if you're running the latest version of Logos 5

The very first time I tried this I felt it took slightly longer than rating:>=0 (perhaps 1s vs 0.2s). But when I tried to use logs to measure the time later, I couldn't get that delay again, or even get the collection rule to show up in the logs.

works just as well¹ and is quicker and easier to type.

¹ if you're running the latest version of Logos 5

The very first time I tried this I felt it took slightly longer than rating:>=0 (perhaps 1s vs 0.2s). But when I tried to use logs to measure the time later, I couldn't get that delay again, or even get the collection rule to show up in the logs.

Mark, look for [inverted] in the log.

EDIT: some background is here.  

The 5.2 beta spun its wheels for about 4 sec before listing the resources!

Logs, please.

And how many resources were matched by the filter?

1212.WildcardRule.zip

* ANDNOT type:(commentary, encyclopedia)  matches 702/1133

* ANDNOT type:(bible, dictionary) matches 1055/1133

* ANDNOT type:(harmony) matches 1118.

I get the same delays in 5.1b SR-2:-

1830.Logos.log

not efficient for ad hoc Library searches.

Correct. I was recommending it for building a collection (the subject of the OP).

Correct. I was recommending it for building a collection (the subject of the OP).

When you say it "works just as well¹ and is quicker and easier to type." people are not apt to notice the subject of the thread[:)]

people are not apt to notice the subject of the thread

Sorry, I should have avoided confusion by adding "and you're using Collections" to my disclaimer.

not efficient for ad hoc Library searches.

Look for improvements in this area in 5.2 Beta 3.

In particular, the filter "* ANDNOT mytag:*" (to find untagged resources) will be significantly faster (in Library and Collections).