Growing problems with priority function becoming too complex

I suggest that we need system provided dividers specifying what functions priorities apply to or that a additional option be provided in the advanced options stating what functions the priority applies to.

1. Because the default lectionary layout includes only one commentary, it is reasonable that the highest priority commentary must be lectionary based eo that one can use parallel resource arrows to move through all one's lectionary based commentaries (a personal collection). Unfortunately, this leads to random results. See http://community.logos.com/forums/t/86312.aspx.

2. I have set my highest priority commentaries to the study Bibles of my choice. This allows the default to provide a quick overview while sections in which I have specified a commentary collection has the real meat. Unfortunately two of my top study Bibles are also coded as Bible dictionaries. This shoves 2 of my preferred dictionaries off the list. (shot from Explorer --> Biblical People --> God context menu)

In short, I am becoming more and more inaccurate in setting my priorities because of interactions too complex to keep in mind.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tim Hensler

we need system provided dividers specifying what functions priorities apply to

[Y] I also don't always get the results I need, depending on what I am right-clicking on (or other functions). We do need to be able to define multiple lists of priority resources and identify for each list what type of data and/or function it belongs to.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606005#Comment_606005

We do need to be able to define multiple lists of priority resources and identify for each list what type of data and/or function it belongs to.

We can do that already (at least for types of data) through the advanced priority feature.

Mark Barnes

In short, I am becoming more and more inaccurate in setting my priorities because of interactions too complex to keep in mind.

Neither of the problems you relate are problems with priorities. The first would be solved by a lectionary datatype which would then ensure that lectionaries and lectionary commentaries kept in sync properly, and could be prioritised separately from other resources.

The second is that some resources are of the wrong type. I can't see how that even vaguely relates to prioritisation.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606007#Comment_606007

We can do that already (at least for types of data) through the advanced priority feature.

We can if:

(a) one recognizes the type "English" to mean dictionary

(b) one wishes to make two entries for the remaining data types

(c) it occurs to one to check all the data types associated with the resource when you add it OR enjoy doing the correct prioritization after the fact

Most study Bibles are not dictionaries so there was no reason to think I needed to check.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606008#Comment_606008

The first would be solved by a lectionary datatype which would then ensure that lectionaries and lectionary commentaries kept in sync properly,

And I have waited for this for how long? I know at one point Logos began working on their lectionary problem but had to stop. I am convinced that it is not a priority at the top levels of Logos.

The second is that some resources are of the wrong type.

And the average user is to know this how? Logos apparently didn't know it when they released the resources. I am trying to put directions together for new users working through a common Bible Study Guide and using the default Lectionary/Saint layouts and owning a few resources most likely for a layperson just starting their Logos collection.

I'm not saying it is impossible to get what I want. I'm saying it's too complex. One at best has to start with advanced features for your Bibles to get the correct versions for the lectionary and for the Bible Study Guide.

BTW: The resource type of the study bibles is correct - Bible Notes. What is unusual is that their glossaries are treated as dictionaries.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

1. Because the default lectionary layout includes only one commentary, it is reasonable that the highest priority commentary must be lectionary based eo that one can use parallel resource arrows to move through all one's lectionary based commentaries (a personal collection).

Noticed one commentary is highest prioritized commentary.

2. I have set my highest priority commentaries to the study Bibles of my choice.

Appears Study Bible resources have English Headword Indexes. The New Living Translation (NLT) also has English Headwords index so used Advanced Prioritization to choose Bible Index, which allows NLT to be prioritized ahead of Dictionaries, but searches for English Headwords finds other prioritized resources before NLT.

Keep Smiling [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606008#Comment_606008

Neither of the problems you relate are problems with priorities.

Thinking about this while giving away toiletries, I know why I respond to it the way I do. The first system I designed was for Academic Personnel. They presented me with a problem. I gave them an elegant solution that worked well in the IT department. Unfortunately, the clerks within Academic Personnel could never quite get the hang of it. In fact, I should not have tried to "fix" there problem because there was no solution that worked at the clerk level especially given their office's organization. Prioritization strikes me as a similar solution - quite elegant but difficult for the average user to get working correctly. Improved somewhat if one makes dummy headings ... if one can determine what those dummy headings should be.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606028#Comment_606028

2. I have set my highest priority commentaries to the study Bibles of my choice.

Appears Study Bible resources have English Headword Indexes. The New Living Translation (NLT) also has English Headwords index so used Advanced Prioritization to choose Bible Index, which allows NLT to be prioritized ahead of Dictionaries, but searches for English Headwords finds other prioritized resources before NLT.

The problem with "study bibles" is that some are type Bible whilst FSB uses it with type Media Collection. Otherwise it is type Bible Notes with a Bible index. I haven't seen any with an English Headword index. NLT appears to be an exception and it will be prioritized ahead of "dictionaries" with English Headwords if all your bibles are prioritised first! To prevent that use advanced prioritization for NLT with the Bible index.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606092#Comment_606092

I haven't seen any with an English Headword index.

Both the Catholic Study Bible and the Ignatius Study Bible were prioritized ahead of "dictionaries" ... my other Study Bibles were not.

As I said my issue is not that it is impossible to do, but that it is overly difficult for a Logos newbie but will be run into on several probable configurations to get both the Lectionary layout (Verbum supplied) and the study layout (content partially driven by study guide content). Note the study guide is from the same group of authors as the Ignatius Study Bible. On the forums the complaint often takes the form of "it isn't intuitive".

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606098#Comment_606098

As I said my issue is not that it is impossible to do, but that it is overly difficult for a Logos newbie but will be run into on several probable configurations

I was mainly replying to KS4J (which unfortunately involved a comment of yours). But I do agree with the difficulties that Prioritisation presents for many users.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606103#Comment_606103

I was mainly replying to KS4J (which unfortunately involved a comment of yours).

Understood.

But I do agree with the difficulties that Prioritisation presents for many users.

I am curious as to why Mark B. doesn't appear to.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606092#Comment_606092

Otherwise it is type Bible Notes with a Bible index. I haven't seen any with an English Headword index.

Three Bible Note resource examples with English Headword indexes: Andrews Study Bible Notes, Reformation Study Bible: ESV , Apologetics Study Bible

As I said my issue is not that it is impossible to do, but that it is overly difficult for a Logos newbie but will be run into on several probable configurations to get both the Lectionary layout (Verbum supplied) and the study layout (content partially driven by study guide content).

+1 [Y] concur. Thankful for friendly forum discussions: have learned a lot plus have a lot to learn.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606104#Comment_606104

But I do agree with the difficulties that Prioritisation presents for many users.

I am curious as to why Mark B. doesn't appear to.

If we state that users should prioritize "study bibles", "dictionaries", etc. i.e. by title, they will be confused because the different types will not yield the desired result. Which is why the wiki advocates to prioritise primarily by type and then consider the other attributes within a type e.g English bibles & Greek bibles. Passage Guide presents the challenge of getting desired results from multiple Commentaries sections, so Prioritization could be broken up as:-

For Commentary Collection A

Commentary A
Commentary B
Commentary C
Commentary D
Commentary E
Commentary F

For Commentary Collection B

Commentary L
Commentary M
Commentary N
Commentary O
Commentary P
Commentary Q

(assuming that Commentary Collection A has the most important commentaries).

Then we run into the problem of resources with multiple indexes e.g. the DBL lexicons which may be used for Strong's numbers or TDNT references; forcing the use of Advanced Prioritization...

It's not simple and many threads have been devoted to resolving ambiguities.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606121#Comment_606121

Three Bible Note resource examples with English Headword indexes: Andrews Study Bible Notes, Reformation Study Bible: ESV , Apologetics Study Bible

All the more reason for Logos to provide this information as part of the Prioritization process!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/606104#Comment_606104

But I do agree with the difficulties that Prioritisation presents for many users.

I am curious as to why Mark B. doesn't appear to.

I don't find prioritisation difficult, but that's not my main point here. My main point here is that prioritisation is getting blamed for something that isn't it's fault.

I would like prioritisation to be changed, as I've said elsewhere (not because it's difficult, but because it's cumbersome). But I don't think it needs major changes. I suggest just two things:

Separating prioritisation into a separate tool like collections, so you can actually see what's going on.
Allowing users to switch to an advanced mode of prioritisation, which would effectively use the L3 system of prioritisation. In L3, you would first choose your datatype, and then set prioritisation for that datatype. That stops all the confusion that occurs when, unexpectedly, a resource has two datatypes. Just as importantly it would also help power users see their prioritisations more clearly. It would be possible to switch from standard to advanced without losing your existing prioritisation, but it would need be a one-way switch. Most importantly, it's only a UI change, it wouldn't require any underlying architecture changes (which frankly, I can't see us getting).

fgh

I wondered why I hadn't seen this. Turned out that I have my dictionaries prioritized above my commentaries. So that's a simple way of avoiding that part of your problem.

And, yes, a lectionary datatype is long overdue!!!