Google vs Logos

It's frustrating for me, that as "fancy" as Logos is, I usually can get a relevant set of hits for part of the Bible I am looking for with the Google search engine, than Logos.

Once I find the general verses I am looking for, then I use Logos to dig deeper into what I was looking for.

You may say, "Well, you just don't know how to use Logos." Yep, I find Logos less "intuitive" than Google. I can put a list of say, three words into a basic Logos search such as: rocks cry out (Thinking of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem), and get nothing. Do that in Google and I get Luke 19:40 instantly at the top of the returned matches.

My point is again, Logos is less intuitive than it should be for the cost.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

You may find this post from Logos CEO helpful: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/55023/400008.aspx#400008 - he addresses the very question you raise.

Eugene

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582495#Comment_582495

I think you answered some part of your thread but to maximize any application, training is always essentials. I do believe the program could be more intuitive but that's always a work in progress. As a IT administrator, Google is a great resource for me and people in my industry but we still need to have a good foundation of the tools we use.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582496#Comment_582496

I'm with you that Logos documentation leaves much to be desired.

Then again, there's community help in the form of this forum, and also the wiki page http://wiki.logos.com

Kent

My point is again, Logos is less intuitive than it should be for the cost.

I agree with the above statement. However, the value of a product is in the way you use it. You cannot do in depth research with Google.

Ted Weis

It's frustrating for me, that as "fancy" as Logos is, I usually can get a relevant set of hits for part of the Bible I am looking for with the Google search engine, than Logos...

My point is again, Logos is less intuitive than it should be for the cost.

I agree with you that Google can get you quicker results. But I'll cross check the result with my Logos library because I trust that information more.

Daniel Liu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582702#Comment_582702

Amen.

Jack Caviness

I can put a list of say, three words into a basic Logos search such as: rocks cry out (Thinking of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem), and get nothing. Do that in Google and I get Luke 19:40 instantly at the top of the returned matches.

Then, you did not search for the correct word combination. Most English translations do not have "rocks" in Luke 19:40. Instead they have "Stones". In fact, of the 68 Bible in my English Bible collection, none have "rocks" in Luke 19:40. Logos searches for the words which you input while Google will throw in synonyms, related words, and the kitchen sink.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582715#Comment_582715

Perhaps Logos should add a section to search results... Google. I'm only half kidding.

toughski

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582720#Comment_582720

Perhaps Logos should add a section to search results... Google. I'm only half kidding.

why not?[Y]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582715#Comment_582715

I can put a list of say, three words into a basic Logos search such as: rocks cry out (Thinking of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem), and get nothing. Do that in Google and I get Luke 19:40 instantly at the top of the returned matches.

Then, you did not search for the correct word combination. Most English translations do not have "rocks" in Luke 19:40. Instead they have "Stones". In fact, of the 68 Bible in my English Bible collection, none have "rocks" in Luke 19:40. Logos searches for the words which you input while Google will throw in synonyms, related words, and the kitchen sink.

It is, in my mind, inexcusable that a major Bible software product cannot help a person with a vague memory find Luke 19:40 using the search: rocks cry out. Telling them "Google can do it because they have a lot of engineers and they search the entire web" or "you didn't search for the correct word combination" is insulting to the person who raised the issue.

Logos used to do much better in L3 (Libronix), because they had fuzzy search, and that meant they'd find inexact quotes, synonyms, etc. There's a longstanding UserVoice suggestion to bring back fuzzy search, ideally an even better version of it. Let's all take a moment to go place some votes on it, and pass the word around.

Incidentally, jmcbade, if you had The Old Syriac Gospels, Studies and Comparative Translations, your search would have found Luke 19:40:

toughski

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

It is, in my mind, inexcusable that a major Bible software product cannot help a person with a vague memory find Luke 19:40 using the search: rocks cry out. Telling them "Google can do it because they have a lot of engineers and they search the entire web" or "you didn't search for the correct word combination" is insulting to the person who raised the issue.

fully agree.

I often face scenarios like this where I would use a "wrong" synonym. In this case, more is less as omitting "rocks" would find the correct verse. So in situations like this, after my initial query failed to produce a verse I was seeking, I start deleting words from the query one by one, leaving most "certain" ones, till I find what I was looking for. So my steps would be 1) starting with "rocks cry out" 2) "cry out" 3) "cry"

Since I am using KJV, many times the problem is with the spelling: "loveth" instead of "loves" for example. In this case, "Match all word forms" selection in Search panel (Click on the magnifying glass icon at the top left side of the program to open the Search panel) is very helpful.

Something Bob said made me perform an experiment:

Google is indexing "everything in the world." Even with a "bag of words" query and no natural language parsing, having the whole Internet in the index increases the chance of good hits. Almost every query anyone has ever typed has a page where almost exactly the same phrase exists.

What if this search query has been used by someone somewhere in Logos' universe of resources? So instead of BIBLE search I performed BASIC search on "rocks cry out" and Voila! the second result was the needed reference. Thanks, Bob!

EDIT: this is an example of benefit, provided by large (Logos) libraries. YMMV. However, it is worth trying when all else fails (and you are not connected to the internet).

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582771#Comment_582771

In designing a search engine, Logos needs to take care of users who need pinpoint precision (e.g. morphological investigations, word studies), as well as users who are looking for highly inclusive results (generic English search). The trick is to do both.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582773#Comment_582773

The trick is to do both.

While eventually this may become practical, at the moment there are technical barriers. Scholars are still going to have to do some work - remember it's not that long ago that scholar's main tool was cards

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582771#Comment_582771

I often face scenarios like this where I would use a "wrong" synonym. In this case,

Imagine how much more difficult this is for the computer - it has to correctly guess the sense of your word to guess the right synonym. Natural language processing is improving dramatically - but if you understand how it works you can easily demonstrate how far it still has to go.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582777#Comment_582777

The trick is to do both.

While eventually this may become practical, at the moment there are technical barriers. Scholars are still going to have to do some work - remember it's not that long ago that scholar's main tool was cards

Yes, I agree that it's not easy. Hence, "trick". [:)]

However, I do think that Logos is marketed as a scholar's tool. So I would hope that the aspect of precision is adequately covered.

toughski

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582778#Comment_582778

Imagine how much more difficult this is for the computer - it has to correctly guess the sense of your word to guess the right synonym. Natural language processing is improving dramatically - but if you understand how it works you can easily demonstrate how far it still has to go.

it has been said that a computer can predict your destination if it only knows the first 2 turns you make (and a database of years of your previous trips).

I do realize the difficulty of this task. Let me propose an idea for our situation with "rocks cry out." Suppose user inputs these 3 words in the search box.

1. Logos runs the search and returns no hits

2. Logos then tries to run pairs of these words "rocks cry", "rocks out", "cry out" - if it finds SOME verses - GREAT! If not, repeat this step with single words.

3. Logos can then see if there are any synonyms/ misspelled words/ etc for the missing word, in this case "rocks"

4. Logos can then display the findings with a screen, that reads "Could not find any results for <original query>. Here are the results for "cry out": xxx,yyy,zzz. Is it possible, you meant <synonym>/<misspelled word> instead of "rocks"?

this is what a human would have done, only a computer can do this thousand times faster.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582787#Comment_582787

it has been said that a computer can predict your destination if it only knows the first 2 turns you make (and a database of years of your previous trips).

I do realize the difficulty of this task. Let me propose an idea for our situation with "rocks cry out." Suppose user inputs these 3 words in the search box.

I know you realize the difficulty involved but let me elaborate on this for people that wouldn't otherwise know.

This whole thing is predicated on the idea that people are creatures of habbit, and we are. But writing a program capable of tracking all the variables (time of day, potential school holidays, time of week, time of month, how much milk is in your fridge, when you take your vacations, when you're in the mood for soft serve ice cream, and when you are just too tired to cook (etc) it would be exceedingly difficult. It would require a database that stored this information, and index that makes it searchable (and people complain now about indexing times =x )... It would almost need to be the functional equivalent of an AI to divine which of the billion possible places you're actually heading. Either that or you would have to do a lot of manual data entry. The database would grow larger with each trip, after each trip a new index would have to be created. Heaven help us if you take a second trip while its re-indexing.

To further complicate things I have to make a pair of right hand turns just to get out of my housing complex.

Applied to searches its not too much different albeit with some different variables. It would be possible to track your search history, and link certain phrases with certain titles based upon how long you spend perusing the title.

If you searched for "rocks cry out" and spent 30 minutes reading in the relevant NICOT volume, then it could dynamically bring the NICOT volume up in the search results (like prioritizing but on a search by search basis) so that the next time you search for "rocks cry out" it brings that volume (and the others you studied in based upon time spent materials that are relevant) up to the top of the search results.

My guess is though, that if you search a bunch of things close together, or worse, get sidetracked in the process you'd taint the whole system.

Plus for those that use their libraries heavily each search would generate more information in the database which would then need to be re-indexed; so in the course of a year or twos study you might have a surprising amount of data which would require a surprising amount of indexing time. As technology stands now this whole line of thinking might be akin to cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Not to mention the cries of people fearing Logos is spying on them. I suspect the outcry would be greater than there is over being required to use a debit card to aquire a free book.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

"you didn't search for the correct word combination" is insulting to the person who raised the issue.

Why is it insulting to inform someone of the way Logos works? We may wish—and I do—that it was different, but it is not. The original search returned no results because no English Bible contains those particular words in a single verse. I did not tell him how I wished it worked, but how it actually works. It is necessary to learn to work within the capabilities of the tools that we have, to modify those tools, or to acquire different tools. In any case, I maintain that I did not insult anyone by stating the way Logos 5 actually works.

Gerald

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

I too am frustrated with this. Google brought 206000 hits in .38 seconds. I teach an adult SS class of which I prepare in Logos 5. I find most of the time I have to reword my searches 2 -5 times to get the reference I am looking for. I had not thought of using Google. Now I may if the first search fails in Logos.

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

It is, in my mind, inexcusable that a major Bible software product cannot help a person with a vague memory find Luke 19:40 using the search: rocks cry out. Telling them "Google can do it because they have a lot of engineers and they search the entire web" or "you didn't search for the correct word combination" is insulting to the person who raised the issue.

Agreed.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582817#Comment_582817

Actually the computing problem is not particularly difficult, the key being a series of attributed tables (which Logos thrives on). The days of writing a stack of rules ended pretty far back. These days, hundreds of variables can be matched up along with weights on ones PC, and even faster on a decent server.

If you're wondering how (in the OP's specific instance), you just take the translations and match them up using a neural net (which doesn't require an exact fit; it'll find the commonality). Or if one wants a tighter fit, various pattern matching algorythms.

So Rosie's point is well taken. Instead of library columns that make no sense (community star-ing, last opened, etc), treads on the scroll bars, and community highlighting that no one looks at, good searching would be a plus for Logos and its users.

Amateur lady (me) can highlight a text sequence in my Bible software, and have it locate all the similars (vocabulary, syntax, and type). Automatically. A pastor's dream come true (ha). And it's also sophisticated enough to guess the author match and time-written estimate, plus any potential later over-writes. And since Bradley runs rings around me, you KNOW Logos has the smarts.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582812#Comment_582812

I too am frustrated with this. Google brought 206000 hits in .38 seconds.

But what good is 200k+ results? That return is only useful if the expected results are on the first couple of pages.

BTW, just tried the same search in Accordance: There it required the entry "rocks AND cry AND out". That Bible software also returned zero results. Do not have—indeed have never used—Bible Works, so I can't check it there.

toughski

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582820#Comment_582820

When I enter "rocks cry out" in the search box, I am pretty certain I have heard or read a verse about it. Logos assumes that I want these exact words, but it is, in effect a wrong assumption. The truth is: I am absolutely sure that there is a verse in the Bible that talks about the idea of rocks crying out, but may be wrong about individual words. The OP' frustration was not with the empty search result, it was with the fact that Logos, for all of it's worth, was not smart enough to perform a fuzzy search.

There is yet another area for Logos to improve (by being more like Google): relevance. Sometimes there are too many hits (especially if one does a BASIC search in the Entire Library. Logos already tracks what features are used most, when, etc. Why not track what resources (groups of resources) are the most relevant to each user? It can be accomplished by not only what I click on, but also what I don't click on after I clicked a certain resource. Where I arrived to this resource from how long I stay and where I go from here. It's all been done with websites for years, why not do it for print libraries?

Relevance. Give me exactly what I need, while I am still formulating what it is I am trying to say!

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582836#Comment_582836

The truth is: I am absolutely sure that there is a verse in the Bible that talks about the idea of rocks crying out

The OP' frustration was not with the empty search result, it was with the fact that Logos, for all of it's worth, was not smart enough to perform a fuzzy search.

Learned λίθος and πέτρα are not cognate words in Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament

Also found TDNT has a footnote.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582835#Comment_582835

BTW, just tried the same search in Accordance: There it required the entry "rocks AND cry AND out". That Bible software also returned zero results. Do not have—indeed have never used—Bible Works, so I can't check it there.

Thought I'd do it in WORDsearch using the same criteria ("rocks AND cry AND out") in a search of Bibles only:

MWW

I agree with your sentiments completely. I find that Logos is great for plowing through the rich harvest fields of scripture. But often I find myself just wanting Logos to be nimble and quick, especially when I am working in a Word Document and need to do a quick scripture search and to copy and paste it into a Word document (which is something that I do many times a day). Using Logos for for something like that is like firing up a tractor to drive down to the corner convenience store for a loaf of bread. It can be done but it often is a slow and frustrating experience. So more often than not I end up using Google search, finding the verse, typing the verse reference into Word, selecting the reference and then using "Replace with Passage". Doing all of that expends more time and energy than I would like... but it is the easy way to get it done.

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582835#Comment_582835

I just tried it in Bibleworks and it did not return any results

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582866#Comment_582866

Let's cut Logos some slack.

Does anyone even remember the early days of altavista, yahoo, infoseek, excite? Google was like that, many man-hours of programming and billions of dollars of R&D ago.

Remember you're also paying for google. With your time, and your advertising revenue.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582866#Comment_582866

I think we all like the idea of a one-stop shop. Thing is, often that just isn't reality. Could Logos 5 be better? Sure...make it more like L3...[:P]...and then go from there. Still, if Google does some things better than Logos, is that really a problem? Mark made his Wikipedia-to-Logos port, and I just looked at it for a minute, gave it some thought, and clicked away without bothering to download it. Truth is, I don't want Wikipedia in Logos...I want it where it is, because I use it for what it is how it is. I'm not saying Logos shouldn't do things to incorporate some Google-like utility to make the program better. I'm just not sold that having to use Google for a search is a real problem.

That said, I would like to re-suggest that Logos implement some form of Google Translate within L5. I don't know how that would have to be hashed out negotiation-wise, but I suspect that if it entailed a button in Logos called Google Translate, Logos would be allowed to use it without having to pay for a license. Having that "Translate This?" button offering to make life easier is a feature upgrade that is extremely useful.

On the other hand, if Google Translate "doesn't translate" into Logos, I would like to see Logos implement an in-house alternative.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582802#Comment_582802

"you didn't search for the correct word combination" is insulting to the person who raised the issue.

Why is it insulting to inform someone of the way Logos works? We may wish—and I do—that it was different, but it is not. The original search returned no results because no English Bible contains those particular words in a single verse. I did not tell him how I wished it worked, but how it actually works. It is necessary to learn to work within the capabilities of the tools that we have, to modify those tools, or to acquire different tools. In any case, I maintain that I did not insult anyone by stating the way Logos 5 actually works.

Yes, you were helping the person work within the limited way that Logos works, but he was frustrated at Logos and I wanted to affirm that Logos shouldn't be as limited as he finds it to be. I'm sorry I used the word "insulting" about what you said. That was going to far. I would encourage people to use Google instead when they're unsure of the wording of a Bible verse and Logos can't find it for them. It simply takes too many convoluted twists to use Logos for a quick lookup like that, which is sad because it's supposed to be powerful Bible software, but that's the reality.

This all reminds me of the joke my father used to tell. A man goes to a tailor to have a nice suit made. He picks it up and one leg is shorter than the other. He complains about it, and the tailor tells him, "Oh, you need to walk like this [demonstrates leaning over to one side and limping along] and then the legs will be even." So the guy tries that, but then one sleeve is longer than the other. So he complains again, and the tailor tells him "Oh, you need to hunch your shoulder up like this and then the sleeves will be even." So he does that, and it seems OK. He walks out the door and down the street. A couple walking by notice him walking in this strange manner and say to one another, "Look at that poor deformed man. But what a great tailor he must have!"

When we have to twist ourselves into contortions to get the software to help us, something is wrong with the software, not with us. So let's petition the software maker to fix it. Like the tailor should have shortened the one pants leg in the first place.

I understand that natural language queries that would make the search rocks cry out work are not easy to implement. But it's not unreasonable for someone to expect them to work. The responses in this thread (yours in particular, Jack) seemed to blame the user for doing it wrong and having unreasonable expectations. So I was just reacting in solidarity with him. Again, I'm sorry I came on so strong against you, though.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582820#Comment_582820

Actually the computing problem is not particularly difficult, the key being a series of attributed tables (which Logos thrives on). The days of writing a stack of rules ended pretty far back. These days, hundreds of variables can be matched up along with weights on ones PC

Actually the computing problem is difficult not because the algorithms are unknown but because building the corpus data to build the vectors and training the system to obtain appropriate weighting is very time consuming. And no, the general corpus data available in English would not produce good weightings for specific fields - like Bible study for instance. For Logos the problem is exponentially complicated by the historical range of dates - corpus and weightings for 16th century won't work well on 20th century materials, and by the need to handle multiple languages - each of which has its own corpus and weights.

I happen to think Logos has taken accepted some unfortunate limits - lack of a true NOT function, the verse as a search unit, etc ... but they have provided a very decent search. I wish they would add a fuzzy search of some variety. There is other simple functionality that is missing that concerns me more. One can learn to manipulate a limited function - one has to fly blind with missing functions.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582880#Comment_582880

I wanted to affirm that Logos shouldn't be as limited as he finds it to be.

One thing that these criticisms of Logos has failed to note—except for KS4J—it that while "rocks" and "stones" are closely related in English, the underlying Greek words are not. How much difference that should make, I will leave for others to argue. Personally, I seldom expect my Bible software—either Logos or Accordance—to fully correct for my faulty memory [8-|]

I'm sorry I used the word "insulting" about what you said. That was going to far.

Don't let it cause you to lose sleep [;)]. From the time stamps on some of your posts, you may not be getting enough of that already.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582779#Comment_582779

So I would hope that the aspect of precision is adequately covered.

The main problems I see here are:

Logos should code to produce false positives in preference to false negative i.e. missing data
Logos should implement a true NOT function
Logos should implement many of the set functions that it has on passage lists for search results so that correct results can be built stepwise
Logos should allow the saving of the search results with the ability to hide and check-off matches as one reviews them (hide for the irrelevant, check for useful and reviewd.
Logos should allow saved search results and passage lists to generate visual filters.
Logos should implement a fuzzy search

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582899#Comment_582899

Add to that: database quality in original-language and key historical references.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582787#Comment_582787

this is what a human would have done, only a computer can do this thousand times faster.

Your algorithm is reasonably practical as a way to reimplement a fuzzy search. If Google's constant attempts to "correct" the spelling of words that are already correct but uncommon, is any indicator, however, it is faster for me to run through the algorithm than have the computer constantly "correcting" to irrelevant results. Google is improving in this area but the number of searches they have to train their system is far beyond Logos' resources.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582802#Comment_582802

It is necessary to learn to work within the capabilities of the tools that we have, to modify those tools, or to acquire different tools.

[Y]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

It is, in my mind, inexcusable that a major Bible software product cannot help a person with a vague memory find Luke 19:40 using the search: rocks cry out.

To my mind, the user is equally responsible for not trying alternative searches to find the verse - "cry out" (with quotes) for example. I've argued with Bob over the need for a particular type of fuzzy search but to my mind it isn't the most important feature lacking in Logos.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582907#Comment_582907

MJ ... 'not'. Really.

Bob Pritchett

You're all right -- including Rosie. :-)

It's inexcusable, and we're fixing it.

-- Bob

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582879#Comment_582879

Could Logos 5 be better? Sure...make it more like L3......and then go from there.

You're all right -- including Rosie. :-)

It's inexcusable, and we're fixing it.

-- Bob

WHOOOOTT!!!!! Straight from the...man's mouth! You don't know how long I've waited for this--well, pretty much since November 2009.

It's joy unspeakable!!

BOB ROCKS!!!

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583012#Comment_583012

You're all right -- including Rosie. :-)

Well, that must be a rarity or you wouldn't have pointed it out specifically. [:P]

It's inexcusable, and we're fixing it.

-- Bob

Yay, Bob! Thank you. Can't wait. I'm sure you wouldn't even hint as to what decade we might see this in? Will it be here before Hebrew Pronunciation? [:)]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583012#Comment_583012

You're all right -- including Rosie. :-)

It's inexcusable, and we're fixing it.

Excellant [Y] [<:o)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582890#Comment_582890

One thing that these criticisms of Logos has failed to note—except for KS4J—it that while "rocks" and "stones" are closely related in English, the underlying Greek words are not.

Well, they are in the same semantic domain (they both fall under "2. Natural Substances > E. Earth, Mud, Sand, Rock" in Louw-Nida) and should be easily determined to be synonyms. If Logos had the smarts to include hits for synonyms as well (if you have the "Fuzzy search" option turned on, which should be a new option on the Search panel menu), then this would be doable.

Personally, I seldom expect my Bible software...to fully correct for my faulty memory

I regularly do. If I had a perfect memory, I wouldn't have to look up verses in Logos at all. Sure, I don't expect it to fully correct for my faulty memory, e.g., I wouldn't expect it to help me remember what sermon I heard last week if I've totally forgotten (which I do). But helping me find a verse that I only vaguely remember, yes, that is within the realm of what I'd expect good Bible software to do. And the fact that Libronix used to do a pretty decent job of it, and I remember using it and being pleased with the fuzzy search feature and miss it makes me keep expecting something like that to work in L4/L5, and I'm regularly disappointed. I know enough to change my search terms, or expand the number of versions I'm looking in, and I usually manage to find what I'm looking for eventually. But still, I'm looking forward to it being possible to nail it on the first try. And Bob has given us a glimmer of hope that that might be coming someday.

Don't let it cause you to lose sleep . From the time stamps on some of your posts, you may not be getting enough of that already.

Yes, I've been slipping in my resolve some nights. [:)]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583012#Comment_583012

You're all right -- including Rosie. :-)

It's inexcusable, and we're fixing it.

-- Bob

Few words but well-said. Thank you. That is exciting to hear.

jmcbade

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582768#Comment_582768

Rosie, what can I say but thank you.

And the comment that I could have purchased an "additional resource", again proves my point.

I did the crossgrade to get clause search, used the same example person:mary as in the advertisement for the feature? NO RESULTS! I do get results for person:jesus

I still think I have a valid point here.

jmcbade

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/582880#Comment_582880

I don't think you "went too far" at all Roise. I appreciated your view and the defense of my position.

YES! Bring back the ability for Fuzzy search, make it optional and make it easy.

Logos, don't you dare charge for it either.

Just my opinion.