Non-Contiguous Passages

Father Kevin Maney

Not sure this needs a log so I am not posting a file. This seems to be a legacy issue from Libronix. As I was preparing a sermon, I searched for this non-contiguous passage: Galatians 3:23-25; 4:4-7. While there is an improvement in Logos 4 in that it actually recognized the passage as non-contiguous (something Libronix never did), I got some interesting search results. The first screenshot shows the results of searching on a non-contiguous passage. The second screenshot shows the same search with one of the two passages omitted. Notice in the former I get meager results but in the latter I get the expected results (at least for an alpha version). I am running the Platinum version, BTW.

Since I've never used the Windoze version of Logos, I don't know if this is a flaw in the program or a bug in the Mac alpha version. Whatever it is, it needs to get fixed. I can search non-contiguous passages in Accordance with no problem whatsoever and would expect to be able to do likewise with Logos.

Thank you in advance. Merry Christmas.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin,

I'm on a windoze machine but I'm wondering about your semi-colon separating the search terms...

I tried it like this:

gal 3:23-25, gal 4:4-7

(comma between passages) and got 890 hits.

then i tried the semi colon like this:

gal 3:23-25; gal 4:4-7

and got 6 hits.

NOTE: when I tried this search

<gal 3:23-25> <gal 4:4-7>

I got 1000 hits.

It has something to do with the syntax of the search terms.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64411#Comment_64411

I'm wondering about your semi-colon separating the search terms...

I duplicate the book name as a matter of habit since I've had problems in some contexts if I don't

I can search non-contiguous passages in Accordance with no problem whatsoever and would expect to be able to do likewise with Logos.

Kevin

Others have pointed out the correct syntax to get the search results you desire, so I won't comment on that part of your post. As a user of both Accordance and Logos I wanted to make a comment or two. Accordance and Logos are very different applications. You cannot apply the operating rules of one to the other. Accordance has one search syntax while Logos has a very different one. If you attempt to make either application operate the way the other operates, you will only become frustrated.

Accordance and Logos approach the task of Bible Study from different directions, and they each have strengths and weaknesses that the other does not have. Learn the best way to operate each and use them the way their individual programmers designed them to work. There was a time when I strongly preferred one above the other, but I have learned the best way to use each one (at least in part), I can honestly say that I do not prefer either one above the other. If you can afford both, then by all means use both. If you can only afford one, use the demo packages to test each one and purchase the one that best fits your study habits.

Jack

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64411#Comment_64411

Hi Robert. Thanks for this. I tried using a comma and did get more hits, but no commentaries, etc. (see first screenshot). I am hugely impressed that it recognized the passage and linked it to the first Sunday after Christmas. Very cool (but still not functional). I then tried the Bible search and got notta (see second screenshot). I am sure you are correct about syntax but nobody at Logos seems to be able to tell me what the proper syntax should be. As far as I'm concerned, this is a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed as I often have to deal with non-contiguous passages.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64454#Comment_64454

Sorry, Jack. I'm not buying your argument. I understand Accordance and Logos are different systems but any system needs to be functional and the fact is that right now, the Mac version in its current state does not produce functional results, at least for me, when searching for non-contiguous passages. I should be able to get similar search results regardless of the kind of passage for which I am searching and Logos does not produce that. I have pointed this out because it needs to be fixed, not to compare the two apps.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64469#Comment_64469

Hi Kevin, I don't have access to my Logos right now, so I cannot experiement with syntax. however, L4 DOES support searching for non-contiguous passages. Assuming you are here to help find bugs and report errors to impove the Alpha, I would suggest that the accuracy of the current Alpha may be a bug worth reporting. However, if you are just simply trying to report that the Alpha does not work for your study needs, than that is already known since it is Alpha software. Thanks for bringing up this issue though and I hope you stick around to help kill some bugs and move the project forward :-) Happy New Year.

Donovan R. Palmer

Since I've never used the Windoze version of Logos, I don't know if this is a flaw in the program or a bug in the Mac alpha version. Whatever it is, it needs to get fixed. I can search non-contiguous passages in Accordance with no problem whatsoever and would expect to be able to do likewise with Logos.

Thanks for pointing this out. I ran some tests here and got varied results as well. This needs to be sorted!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64526#Comment_64526

Kevin,

It appears that the search results differences are not a "fault" of Logos but just a function of the syntax itself.

When you used a semi colon to separate the passage references, Logos only searched for your first term; it didn't know what you wanted.

When I searched with a comma between terms, the search worked...so a comma is the proper separator.

But when I searched like this:

<gal 3:23-25> OR <gal 4:4-7>

With the passages in brackets, that actually produced the results you're looking for; it was an accurate search because Logos treated each element within the brackets as separate passages. I used OR out of habit, a comma will do the same thing.

If you don't use brackets; then Logos will search separately for the WORD mark...and you don't want that.

So to sum it up; references should be in brackets, separated by a comma or OR in capital letters.

Also to note is the "Entire Library" portion of the search. I don't like searching my entire library because I think that if I'm going to do a search, then I SHOULD have some good idea about the question I'm really asking...and that will limit WHERE I want to find the answers.

For example: you want to find out about Jewish marriage customs. You know you'll type in the word Marriage but where do you think you'll find answers to your question?...the Early Church Fathers? John MacArthur? The Bible and Spade Archeological Magazine? Luther's Table talks? Greek Lexicons?

That's an important question to ask before you push the search button...you should have a good idea of who will be referencing your word and what you're really looking for.

Searching only a portion of your library will also serve the purpose of narrowing your hits to a manageable level...making the results easier to wade through to get your desired information.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64462#Comment_64462

I tried using a comma and did get more hits, but no commentaries, etc.

Kevin

I apologize for misunderstanding your initial post. [:$]

I tried the same search using the comma as separator. My search returned 638 resources, including many commentaries. The same search on Windows returned 652 results, also with many commentaries. Windows—running on Parallels 5—returned the results in 4.45 seconds while A-8 took more than 2 minutes, but then it is Alpha. However, the search did work for me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64558#Comment_64558

Jack,

Did you notice? Since you didn't put the ref's in brackets, you got hits for THE WORD Galatians itself?

Logos treated each part of your ref like different terms it looks like.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64558#Comment_64558

I tried the same search using the comma as separator. My search returned 638 resources, including many commentaries.

I probably shouldn't reply to my own post, but I wanted to keep this separate.

After reading Robert's post, I took a look at my search results, for some of them appear to be erroneous hits. In A-8, I could not open any of the resources from the Search Results. Has anyone else tried this?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64560#Comment_64560

Did you notice? Since you didn't put the ref's in brackets, you got hits for THE WORD Galatians itself?

Logos treated each part of your ref like different terms it looks like.

That would be the erroneous hits I tried to investigate in A-8. Thanks Robert for pointing that out. BTW, A-8 just crashed.

1524.Archive.zip">http://community.logos.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/75/1524.Archive.zip]

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64521#Comment_64521

Hi Joe. Yes, I am here to help find bugs. Please read my comments about study needs in the context to other comments to which I was replying. At this point, I do not know if the issue is my ignorance concerning the use of proper syntax or whether this is a bug in Logos. My point to others who have responded to my original post (and thank you all for doing so) is this. I can indeed get multiple hits using a comma or brackets to separate non-contiguous passages and have posted screen shots to indicate this. That is not the issue. The issue is that Logos does not categorize/organize hits for me the way it does when I search for contiguous passages. I would humbly suggest that having to search through hundreds of hits without any apparent organizing schema is essentially useless. No one is going to do that. The beauty of Logos' organizing schema is that it gives the user different options where to start rather than simply display a huge list of hits. So functionally, while multiple hits can be achieved, they are not organized in a coherent and user friendly way like contiguous passage results are. This is analogous to doing an internet search and getting millions of hits. No one is going to peruse millions of hits. Unlike doing an internet search, however, users are limited in the way they search for passages. Does this make sense?

And yes, I plan to stick around for this project I have too much time and money invested not to do so. :-)

One more question then. I thought by posting this issue, I have reported a bug, but inferring from your email I have not done so. Is that correct? Thanks in advance.

Happy New Year to you as well.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64563#Comment_64563

Hi Jack. I had A8 crash once when I used brackets but it didn't the other times I used them. The time it crashed I chose from the list of anticipated results rather than hitting search and not waiting for Logos to produce suggestions.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64557#Comment_64557

Hi Robert. Thanks for this. Using this syntax, Logos returned over 4300 hits. The problem with this is that they were just in a list; they were not organized into any meaningful or usable schema (see my reply to Joe Miller for a more complete explanation). Clearly syntax is important but there is a more fundamental issue of usability here. :-)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64743#Comment_64743

Kevin,

Here is the problem. When you entered a singular verse range (ex. Gal 3-15-25), Logos ran what is called a Passage Guide. The Passage Guide is what pulls all the relevant sections from commentaries etc on your passage and hyper-links them in an easy to use report. When you tried to look up multiple passages, Logos interpreted the info as a search query, and gave you a list of information you weren't necessarily looking for. Since you can have multiple Passage Guides/Exegetical Guides open, I'd suggest running separate passage guides for your different passages.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64558#Comment_64558

Hi Jack. No need to apologize. If I start getting things right all the time, then I'll be offended. Until then, let's just enjoy being beta testers. [8o|] [B]

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64745#Comment_64745

Thanks for this, Michael. I see and agree. In fact, I did exactly what you recommended, but your suggestion still remains only a workaround to a problem that exists. Perhaps that is the way it must be--only the developers know how many millions of lines of code would be needed to do this--but it sure would be nice if Logos could interpret non-contiguous passages and display passage/exegetical guide results in addition to producing search query results. This, however, would be a feature request, not a bug report.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64746#Comment_64746

Hi Jack. No need to apologize. If I start getting things right all the time, then I'll be offended. Until then, let's just enjoy being beta testers.

Is that a beer emotocon? LOL!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64744#Comment_64744

Clearly syntax is important but there is a more fundamental issue of usability here. :-)

Kevin,

I fully agree with you which is why I said; know who you are going to ask before you ask...right?

this is the way I'd approach it so you don't get 4 million unwanted unsorted results....

Q: What do the early church fathers have to say about Mark 4:1-13? (Jesus speaking in parables)

Answer gotten by ONLY searching the ECF volumes.

Result: 19 manageable (and relevant) hits.

Possibly you want to know about this passage and what Archeology has to say about it?

Answer: none.

How about what John MacArthur has to say about it?

Again...a streamlined search targeted to get the pertinent results we want:

Answer: 46 relevant and manageable hits...

Just like Google...If you want to know what hair salon is near your house, you don't put in "hair salon" you put in "jacks style and go clarksburg, wv" and you get a relevant entry for your query.....

Does that help?

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64752#Comment_64752

Yes it is. Found it in the emoticon tools that Logos offers here in these forums. [Y]

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64753#Comment_64753

Yes indeed, Robert. Your post is very helpful. Thank you.

I am not, however, connecting the dots between using relevant search criteria and having Logos produce passage guides for non-contiguous passages.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64760#Comment_64760

Kevin,

My point was not the contiguous part or not...you had said that the issue was "wading through a lot of unsorted hits"

I was just trying to organize a little....

Contiguous or not...the principle is the same.....right?

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64771#Comment_64771

Hi Robert. Yes, I see that, but it seems to me these are two separate issues and I wish I had not used it as an example in my previous post because it is confusing the issue about which I originally posted. As Michael helpfully pointed out, what I am looking for is for Logos to produce a passage guide when I search for non-contiguous passages from the home page. It does not do that. Instead, it produces a query list because it thinks that is what I want. For example, I used the search page and followed the syntax in its example above the search field (see screen shot). While it did produce commentaries, it did not produce the commentaries for the text on which I searched. So we are back to the basic question: is this a bug or a feature request? I am not familiar enough with L4 to answer this. If it is a bug, I hope it will get fixed. If it is a feature request, and if it is a reasonable one, I hope it will be considered and incorporated. Thanks for your patience.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64739#Comment_64739

Hi Kevin,

You wrote, "Hi Joe. Yes, I am here to help find bugs. Please read my comments about study needs in the context to other comments to which I was replying."

I am glad to hear that. I see you have been posting for at least the last few Alpha drops and I am glad you are here to help out brother.

Sorry I am not able to help more right now with the specifics of your question though. I hope to be running again soon this week once my Mac gets fixed.

In the meantime, I am glad everyone else is here to help work thiw out (bug or syntax or whatever the real issue)

Happy New Year!!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64752#Comment_64752

Hi Jack. No need to apologize. If I start getting things right all the time, then I'll be offended. Until then, let's just enjoy being beta testers.

Is that a beer emotocon? LOL!

That is a beer. [:O]. Wow, Kevin, do you always offer Baptist preachers from the South (IFB & SBC) alcohol? [8-|] (Note the Smiley; I am not offended. I gave up alcohol almost 40 years ago. Prior to that I was the proverbial drunken sailor.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64760#Comment_64760

I am not, however, connecting the dots between using relevant search criteria and having Logos produce passage guides for non-contiguous passages

I believe the best way to accomplish this would be to open a PG and conduct the search from there.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64809#Comment_64809

For the SBC faithful, lets just call it a ROOT beer :-)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64813#Comment_64813

For the SBC faithful, lets just call it a ROOT beer :-)

[Y] But the IFB people would be more offended. (IFB = Independent Fundamental Baptist) [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64816#Comment_64816

Why would IFB still be upset with Root Beer? Is it the caffine? If so, most Root Beer has no caffine so they would be safe too :-)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64798#Comment_64798

what I am looking for is for Logos to produce a passage guide when I search for non-contiguous passages from the home page.

Kevin...

wow..I was way off.....

Sorry for the confusion...but thanks for cluing me in!

bob

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64837#Comment_64837

To the best of my knowledge (and testing) the passage guide is not intended to take more than one contiguous passage. I am assuming that Logos is using the term "pericope" consistently - i.e. section heading in a Bible translation. Not my primary definition of pericope, but ...

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64809#Comment_64809

Well, Jack, we Anglican priests are renowned for our sloppy theology, lack of of social skills, and general cluelessness. [D] [:'(]

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64841#Comment_64841

Thanks for this, MJ. If this is true, then my original concern turns out to be a feature request and not a bug report.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64818#Comment_64818

Good response on my behalf, Joe. Thank you!

Did I mention to Jack that Anglican priests aren't very smart, either? [;)]

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64837#Comment_64837

Hi Robert. No, you were not way off. I muddied the waters by giving an imprecise analogy with Google and you were very helpful in talking about search algorithms. Hopefully someone will be able to clarify whether the non-contiguous passage with the passage guide is a bug report or feature request. I'll shut up until I get some clarification.

Again, thanks for chiming in here. Being a Libronix 1.x user and now a beta tester, I am very much in need of lessons on L4's search algorithms.

Father Kevin Maney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64841#Comment_64841

Hi MJ. This is in response to both you and Jack, who said that, "I believe the best way to accomplish this would be to open a PG and conduct the search from there." You are both correct. I was looking at the lectionary for 1/10 and sure enough we have another non-contiguous passage (bless the RCL's pointy little head). So I created a new passage guide and pasted the non-contiguous passage from Luke in it (see first screen shot). Low and behold, L4 took it and made it into a contiguous passage and displayed the corresponding commentaries et al. (see second screen shot).

From this I am assuming this is not a bug, but rather L4's way of handling a non-contiguous passage. If someone from Logos could please confirm (or deny), I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64818#Comment_64818

Why would IFB still be upset with Root Beer? Is it the caffine? If so, most Root Beer has no caffine so they would be safe too :-)

The original question involved alcoholic (?) beer. I know your post introduced Root Beer into the thread, but there was a time lag in my thinking there. No, IFB would not object to Root Beer, especially if it contains caffeine—That is the acceptable drug. [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64903#Comment_64903

Well, Jack, we Anglican priests are renowned for our sloppy theology, lack of of social skills, and general cluelessness.

I did not know that! Thanks for the illumination [:D] If I were a true IFB… I'd better not go there, for I will surely offend someone if I do. Let's just say that even though I served as pastor of IFBs for 20 years, I'm not a full member of the family.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64949#Comment_64949

So I created a new passage guide and pasted the non-contiguous passage from Luke in it (see first screen shot). Low and behold, L4 took it and made it into a contiguous passage and displayed the corresponding commentaries et al. (see second screen shot).

Oh Oh Oh!!!

NOW i get what you're asking....

Whew...a screen shot is worth 46 posts isn't it?

How could this be handled in one PG??

It seems like having two sections in one PG is no different than doing two PG's and putting the windows side by side.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64949#Comment_64949

L4 took it and made it into a contiguous passage and displayed the corresponding commentaries et al. (see second screen shot).

From this I am assuming this is not a bug, but rather L4's way of handling a non-contiguous passage.

Kevin

I don't believe L3 handled non-contiguous passages either. I believe Logos is designed to handle contiguous passages. This is one of those places where Logos and Accordance are very different in their operation.

Quick Links