Bob Pritchett: please prioritize QUALITY over QUANTITY

A discussion related to this was already under way in this thread: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/94588/657763.aspx#657763

Since then, I ran into another problem that highlights the extent of the issue. I was reading a book that mentions Sifra and Sifre. Since (1) I was not familiar with these (2) There were specific references and (3) They are referred as Tannaitic and I am trying to have relevant primary sources for biblical studies, I sought to find whether I had them in Logos. Apparently not, since the few references I find do not work. So I wrote a post to ask the question to other users. In their answers, I find allusions to resources I HAVE that did not show up when I did this search (compare the left with the right):

The KEY benefit of Logos as an electronic resource and THE selling point of upgrading is the FEATURES and DATASETS. We can save so much time we are told by using this or that tool. Sure. But when resources are not properly tagged, and I mean not the occasional typo, but whole resources; when indeed getting resources out is prioritized over getting them right and the flow of new resources never stops, can I have confidence that what I find through Logos features is reliable? When I search Dead Sea Scrolls for specific data, will I be missing important data because tagging is incomplete? When I think I have done the research, can I affirm anything (publish anything) with any confidence? Do I need to read again all the resources myself in order to double-check and if so, what is the point of the features?

I am concerned here, really concerned.

(As usual, I would ask those people who think that their mission in the forums is to come along and say it ain't so or it ain't so bad or come to the rescue to perceived attacks on Logos, to please avoid hijacking this thread).

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Unix

I agree with You Francis! Not all books can be properly tagged, but at least many should have a priority. Most.

Mark Barnes

I hope I'm not perceived as coming to the rescue of Logos, nor hijacking the thread. But I wanted to explain what's going on, because I think that will help.

The reason the lower result didn't show up is because it's a personal book. It displays under the "Your Books" heading, rather than the "Library Results heading".

But, to be honest, the best way of finding articles is not to use a search at all. Either use the topic guide, or the power lookup tool. If you'd have right-clicked on the word "Sifra" in a resource, and chosen Power Lookup, it would have the articles in DCB and the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Searching is for finding stuff IN articles. Lookup is for finding articles.

(I don't have the DCB installed on this computer, otherwise that would show up too.)

Francis

Thank you, Mark for your reply. You are right (and you would know) about DCB but JE is not a personal book. See https://www.logos.com/product/8537/the-jewish-encyclopedia

AND its result does NOT show up in Topic Guide or Factbook. I had found that I could indeed use Power Lookup the way you mentioned it, but it seems to me that it only circumvents rather than solve the problem: how many different tools must one use in order to find an entry in a dictionary?!?

Nick Steffen

But, to be honest, the best way of finding articles is not to use a search at all. Either use the topic guide, or the power lookup tool. If you'd have right-clicked on the word "Sifra" in a resource, and chosen Power Lookup,

Mark, good point. But I believe your point expresses one of the bigger challenges I have using Logos. My mind doesn't think naturally of a particular resource and then move to the topic. My mind thinks of the topic first. Then I have to find that topic in my available resources. So why isn't there a search box in the Power Lookup tool? Any suggested alternatives?

RyanB

I think the issue may be the way the JE is tagged (or not tagged). When I do the same search for the headword that you did, my JE doesn't come back as a hit, but when I do it as an everything search, JE appears in the results.

Mark Barnes

I had found that I could indeed use Power Lookup the way you mentioned it, but it seems to me that it only circumvents rather than solve the problem: how many different tools must one use in order to find an entry in a dictionary?!?

Logos provides multiple tools partly because they know their tagging isn't complete (and never will be, because we'll always want more).

For finding an entry in dictionary, I would recommend:

Start with the Topic Guide or Factbook. (Factbook is more comprehensive, but has some teething problems. In the long-run it will be the better tool). 95% of the time that will get you your article.
If you can't find it, try Power Lookup. 99% of the time you'll have your article by now.
If you still can't find it, try the heading/large-text search.
Don't forget you have Wikipedia in L6.

To make this better:

Logos have a responsibility to improve the Factbook, and add LCV tagging to more encyclopaedias (like the JE).
Logos also has a responsibility to make the tools they provide simple and effective.
Finally, we have a responsibility to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the various tools, and use them appropriately.

Mark Barnes

So why isn't there a search box in the Power Lookup tool?

That's a good question that's never been properly answered!

Any suggested alternatives?

Type lookup topicname in the command box to open a dictionary to that topic. I use that all the time. You can then get to other dictionaries via the parallel resource menu, or click the + tab to see all the dictionaries with that article (which is similar to power lookup).

Nick Steffen

Type lookup topicname in the command box to open a dictionary to that topic.

Thanks, that looks helpful! I'll give it a try.

Francis

Type lookup topicname in the command box to open a dictionary to that topic.

Here is an illustration of Mark's suggestion. Note that there will NOT be anything in the spot where the highlighted results are if one does not have other resources with the searched entry:

Mark, as always, you are very resourceful and helpful, thank you very much. These are handy solutions. I do appreciate however the fact that you also recognize that there are responsibilities that are on Logos' side. And, I would still maintain, that generally, there are quite a few holes and that it does take away confidence that the results one gets from Logos are entirely reliable (within reason).

Going back to the needs of academics, there is good reason why some of us have invested so much in Logos. I can say that there are few services providing goods (aside from food, rent, utilities) in which I have invested as much and as regularly. Moreover, I have been an advocate of Logos among friends, ministers and academic peers. But it is critical to go a level up as far "tidying" things up is concerned. There are just way too many loose ends. Logos IS exciting and does a lot of good things (and I appreciate Bob, the company and so on) but needs a more controlled approach to be a reliable professional tool. Among other things, I think it critical to prioritize tagging, error-checking and the performance of features that cater to Academics. Others will benefit too, but arguably, the average person who does a home Bible study, will not be running morph searches and be that concerned or even notice that results are not comprehensive. For academics however, these things need to be more reliable.

And, I might add, it is nice that Logos has so many entry points in data. But all too often it feels that the way to get things done is to perform tricks and to know secondary or little documented work-around as for instance, the command you mentioned above. Why in the world would one even think in that direction when there is a topic guide and a factbook (both prominently featured in the ads)? Only as we run into problems are we forced to find creative ways around them.

MJ. Smith

I would like to reframe the problem slightly:

First. it seems to me that the effect of the current Faithlife prioritization scheme is to generate many hits on a few topics. I would rather that the concentrate first on broadening their topics. This would move things like the Jewish Encyclopedia up in priority. How many people own a resource is not a measure of the usefulness of tagging it. If most people owning it own similar items that are already tagged, the value of its tagging goes down.

Second, it seems to me that more advanced planning could make tagging more "automatic". For example, if datatypes had been designed for all the patristic and psuedepigraphia writings, the links could be made when a resource is created with the links leading "no where". When the target of the link is offered, all those links now become live without having to define a datatype and go back through all old resources. Yes, there will be some surprises but a big chunk of materials would be automatically covered.

Ken McGuire

I still remember when I was taught the Nestle-Aland Apparatus at school - and how we can know what IS and IS NOT always referenced. While admittedly not an academic user of Logos, the lack of consistency about what is linked and searchable is somewhat frustrating.

I fully know that in the real world, not everything will be linked, but I wish I had a clue what WOULD always be...

David Ames

For finding an entry in dictionary, I would recommend:

Start with the Topic Guide or Factbook. (Factbook is more comprehensive, but has some teething problems. In the long-run it will be the better tool). 95% of the time that will get you your article.

If you can't find it, try Power Lookup. 99% of the time you'll have your article by now.

If you still can't find it, try the heading/large-text search.

Don't forget you have Wikipedia in L6.

The OP knew that a hit was missing.

But if we do not know what might be missing are you saying that we need to do all three to ensure we have found all possible hits?

Jannie van Niekerk

Thank you Francis for the report.

I have made note of the issues and will flag this resource for an update.

Francis

Thank you, Jannie.

fgh

I have made note of the issues and will flag this resource for an update.

Jannie, I do hope that you also saw this:

First. it seems to me that the effect of the current Faithlife prioritization scheme is to generate many hits on a few topics. I would rather that the concentrate first on broadening their topics. This would move things like the Jewish Encyclopedia up in priority. How many people own a resource is not a measure of the usefulness of tagging it. If most people owning it own similar items that are already tagged, the value of its tagging goes down.

Second, it seems to me that more advanced planning could make tagging more "automatic". For example, if datatypes had been designed for all the patristic and psuedepigraphia writings, the links could be made when a resource is created with the links leading "no where". When the target of the link is offered, all those links now become live without having to define a datatype and go back through all old resources. Yes, there will be some surprises but a big chunk of materials would be automatically covered.

[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

Besides the Jewish Encyclopedia, I would also like to push the various JPS and Liturgical Press dictionaries as ones sorely in need of tagging.