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).
Comments
-
I agree with You Francis! Not all books can be properly tagged, but at least many should have a priority. Most.
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
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.)
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
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?!?
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
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?
0 -
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.
0 -
Francis said:
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.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Nick Steffen said:
So why isn't there a search box in the Power Lookup tool?
That's a good question that's never been properly answered!
Nick Steffen said: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).
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Type lookup topicname in the command box to open a dictionary to that topic.
Thanks, that looks helpful! I'll give it a try.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
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.
0 -
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.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
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...
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
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?
0 -
Also, while the command Lookup is handy, it does not seem -- from what I have seen -- as flexible as searches or guides. You cannot use search operators for multiple possible topic headings.
It does not seem to offer suggestions either. For instance, if you type Lookup Gospel of, you won't get a drop down with Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, etc.
What this means is that it is much more important when using Lookup from the command bar to use the correct heading for your topic (generally, this is true of most commands that you need to use correct syntax and terms to get the right results).
0 -
David Ames said:
we need to do all three to ensure we have found all possible hits
From all that has been said on this topic, I would think that using all three would increase the number of hits and provide workaround some limitations of this or that but by no means guarantee that all possible hits have been found. After all, part of the problem remains that resources are not properly tagged.
BTW, Mark, since you seem to know much more what's going on under the hood than most of us, I don't understand why an entry can be found by Lookup when it cannot by the other methods. Why can't the same method used by Lookup also be used in TG or FB to find entries?
0 -
Francis said:Mark Barnes said:
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:
This is actually only almost what Mark suggested. Notice that you put a space in "look up". It should be without a space. When you remove the space, Logos will actually just directly open your highest prioritized encyclopedia / dictionary / lexicon with the term. This is a great little feature, very fast, and allows you to control the resource opened with prioritization. Then, you can just use parallel resources to see what other terms. BTW, when I type in "lookup sifra" it opens the JE to Sifra.
And, I second the suggestion that JE receive better headword treatment....
0 -
David Ames said:
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?
For dictionaries (which is how this discussion began), once you've found one entry, the others are only a click away in the parallel resource menu. The issue here was that Francis never even got one entry.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
This is actually only almost what Mark suggested. Notice that you put a space in "look up". It should be without a space. When you remove the space, Logos will actually just directly open your highest prioritized encyclopedia / dictionary / lexicon with the term.
No, Francis was right. Technically, it's supposed to be "look up" with the space, but I'm lazy and leave it out, which still works.
In the screenshot, Francis had done that, then pressed the + tab to get the additional results, as I'd suggested to Nick.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Francis said:
BTW, Mark, since you seem to know much more what's going on under the hood than most of us, I don't understand why an entry can be found by Lookup when it cannot by the other methods. Why can't the same method used by Lookup also be used in TG or FB to find entries?
OK, here goes [:)].
Logos Controlled Vocabulary
To facilitate exactly this kind of thing, Logos created what it calls the Logos Controlled Vocabulary or LCV.
As it's name suggests, the LCV controls the vocabulary used in dictionary entries, so that (for example), "Spiritual Gifts", "Gifts, Spiritual", "Gifts of the Spirit", "Charismata", "Holy Spirit, Gifts of", "Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and "Gifts (Spiritual)" are all marked as equivalent.
We all love that, and have got rather used to it, but I don't think any other Bible software company has done this. It's the quality you referred to in your post title. It means that when I call up the Factbook or Topic Guide on Spiritual Gifts, I get articles on all those topics.
However, producing the LCV is an awful lot of work. To do so, a human editor goes through a dictionary in Logos and add any new topics into the LCV, either as a new entry, or as another synonym to an existing entry. The entries in each dictionary are also marked with the correct topic. I don't know how many dictionaries have received LCV tagging, but I have at least 36 in my library.
The upside of the LCV approach is significant. We get very relevant results, without needing to look up seven different topics just for Spiritual Gifts. The downside is that if a dictionary hasn't received LCV tagging (such as the Jewish Encylopedia), then it won't show up in the Topic Guide or Factbook.
Headwords
In addition to LCV, Logos also recognises headwords. These are the actual dictionary entries, and you see headwords in the reference box for each article. They're not controlled, but all dictionaries have them. Headwords have been around since at least Logos 2 days, and they're supported in lots of tools, but not the Topic Guide or Factbook.
Many dictionary entries have multiple headwords where the headword is ambiguous (so the AYBD article is tagged with the headword "Gifts, Spiritual" (which is what's visible), but also has a headword "Spiritual Gifts". This helps headword-powered tools, but isn't as comprehensive as the LCV.
What Logos does and what you should do
In an ideal world, every dictionary would have LCV tagging. But that takes time, and will likely never happen (what about discontinued resources?, personal books?, dictionaries on completely obscure topics?). So because there's a mix, different tools work best with the different technologies.
My step-by-step advice essentially boiled down to:
- First, use an LCV tool (Factbook or Topic Guide).
- Second, use a headword tool (Power Lookup, or the Look Up command)
- Third, use a search tool (heading/large text)
Between those three methods, you've covered everything. And once you've found one result, you can use the parallel resource menu, or + tab (which uses headwords).
I'm not saying that you always need to use all three methods. I certainly don't. I use the first, and if I feel my results are inadequate, I use the second, and so on. I don't need to read everything. I don't have time to read everything. So 95% of the time, the Factbook/Topic Guide is sufficient.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Thanks, Mark, again, very useful.
There is one question that (I don't think) is elucidated by your explanation: why are entries that are tagged with headwords (such as Sifra in JE that shows up in PL) not "hit" when searching heading title, heading text, title or large text? I would tend to think that the bolded Sifra at the end of the corresponding entry in JE is a heading title, a title and large text, no?
0 -
Francis said:
why are entries that are tagged with headwords (such as Sifra in JE that shows up in PL) not "hit" when searching heading title, heading text, title or large text? I would tend to think that the bolded Sifra at the end of the corresponding entry in JE is a heading title, a title and large text, no?
I'n not sure about heading title (and I don't have the resource to check), but from your screenshot it looks like it's not a large text but just formatted in All-Caps and Bold. Even if the resource info page says that a resource exposes Large text, this may be only the heading page or large A, B, C characters used as entry to sections. Headwords work as large text only when they are formatted in a larger font than the rest. And I don't think that headwords are ever formatted as title - maybe some picture captions do, and maybe some titles of articles in journals.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Of the making of links there is no end. [:)] cf. Ecclesiastes 12:12
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Headings are defined in the resource information panel of the resources that have them as "The text of book, chapter and pericope headings". This means that it is found in Bibles and other works that have titles as for instance, Josephus' writings.
Large text is very illuminatingly described as "large text"
Both of these are search fields.
Headwords, however, are listed as indexes, not search fields. For instance, JE lists in its indexes Hebrew headwords, Transliterated headwords and English headwords.
So much for the difference between headwords and headings and why searching the latter does not bring up the former.
But I am not sure I understand why the two are distinguishable nor the difference, really, between indexes and search fields (although I assume that headwords are part of the annoying indexing process whereas headings are not). And, why, since headwords are indexed, can't they be also search fields?
Finally, again, with all the GRATITUDE I have for the power of Logos, how in the world is the average user to think that searching headings would not produce titles or headwords?
0 -
Francis said:
There is one question that (I don't think) is elucidated by your explanation: why are entries that are tagged with headwords (such as Sifra in JE that shows up in PL) not "hit" when searching heading title, heading text, title or large text? I would tend to think that the bolded Sifra at the end of the corresponding entry in JE is a heading title, a title and large text, no?
I can explain the technical stuff, but not necessarily the editorial decisions.
If you look at the information panel of the Jewish Encylopaedia, you'll get a description of all the search fields (see below).
You'll see that it doesn't support the Heading Text or Heading Title fields. (Heading Title is a typo, by the way. It's only used in one resource that Logos didn't create. Heading Text is the official heading field). You'll also see that Title refers to the title of an object, not the heading of an article.
In other words, like many resources, the JE doesn't specifically tag headings. As to why the decision was made to create the JE without that tagging, I'm afraid I'm as much in the dark as you are.
But Logos know that many resources (particularly older ones) don't have the Heading Text field, which is why they introduced the Large Text field. This is automatically applied by the indexer to text over a certain size, and doesn't require tagging. It's a workaround for resources without heading tagging, and usually works OK. In this case though, the headings in the JE are too small to qualify.
It's rare that this type of search doesn't find results. Usually the problem is false positives. And it's even rarer that a combination of all three steps would fail to find it (and in this case, step 2 would have got it).
(By the way, if you're wondering how I know all this, it's because I asked all the exact same questions back in 2009-2010 shortly after LCV was introduced!)
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
By the way, if you're wondering how I know all this, it's because I asked all the exact same questions back in 2009-2010 shortly after LCV was introduced!
And I had thought you were doing a PhD in Logossology! [:D]
0 -
Francis said:
But I am not sure I understand why the two are distinguishable nor the difference, really, between indexes and search fields (although I assume that headwords are part of the annoying indexing process whereas headings are not). And, why, since headwords are indexed, can't they be also search fields?
Here's the technical explanation.
Logos has two types of indexes.
- The first is the one we normally think of as the index, and it comes in three flavours: library index, Bible index, and personal book index. They're stored on disk in the Data/Random folder.
- The second index comes in two flavours: datatype and headword. They're stored on disk as .mstidx files, in the Data/Random/ResourceManager/logos folder.
The first index indexes the content of resources, including what you can see (the ordinary text), what you can sometimes see (interlinear data, footnote popups), and even what you can't see (labels). Fields are part of this first index. This first index is used primarily by the search tool.
The second index indexes milestones and headwords. Milestones and headwords are visible in the right-click menu, and in the reference box within resources. When you click on a reference to John 3:16, and your Bible jumps to that passage, it's using this second index to know where to go. Likewise, the power lookup tool and parallel resource menus use this index to know which dictionaries have an article on any particular topic.
The distinction between these two indexes is the distinction between searching content (first index), and looking up references (second index). The first index is analogous to a concordance or the index of a monograph. The second index is analogous to a table of contents in a dictionary. In other words, the first index will likely return many results from a single resource, from dozens of pages/chapters. The second index will find one article in each resource that matches.
In Logos 4 and Logos 5, the two indexes were kept quite distinct. Search used the first, look up used the second. You couldn't search for milestones or headwords, you could only look them up. In Logos 6, the search tool is now able to search for milestones, although it can't yet search for headwords. Hopefully that's coming.
PS - to add to the confusion, what the resource information panel calls indexes are the data elements for that resource that are in the second (.mstidx) index . It has nothing to do with searching (which is what we normally associated the index with).
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
My step-by-step advice essentially boiled down to:
- First, use an LCV tool (Factbook or Topic Guide).
- Second, use a headword tool (Power Lookup, or the Look Up command)
- Third, use a search tool (heading/large text)
Between those three methods, you've covered everything. And once you've found one result, you can use the parallel resource menu, or + tab (which uses headwords).
Mark,
I'm betting there's not a way to create a custom guide that includes those 3 search / lookup approaches? That would be seem to be a reasonable solution given the incomplete nature of any 1 approach.
Thanks for the explanation. This is another "Post to wiki" forum thread. (See https://community.logos.com/forums/p/94264/654886.aspx#654886)
Donnie
0 -
Donnie Hale said:
I'm betting there's not a way to create a custom guide that includes those 3 search / lookup approaches? That would be seem to be a reasonable solution given the incomplete nature of any 1 approach.
There isn't a way. And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark,
Thanks for your very helpful and detailed explanations. You are truly a blessing to the whole Logos community.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
In an ideal world, every dictionary would have LCV tagging. But that takes time, and will likely never happen
Two words, Mark: Cloud Tagging
By the way, your response was outstanding in terms of helpfulness. A Vulcan mind-meld would be ideal, at this point.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Doc B said:
Two words, Mark: Cloud Tagging
That's beginning to be possible with community tags (although they're for content, not milestones). If that experiment goes well...
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Thank you Francis for the report.
I have made note of the issues and will flag this resource for an update.
0 -
Thank you, Jannie.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.
I am not sure I agree with you on this, Mark.
Instead of adding a "search everything" link which, in my opinion, is really nothing new (I don't see any difference from the already existing basic search searching all resources in the library), it would be more needed and useful to have something of the thematic kind (if we must find a different term than "topic" considering how it is already being used in Logos).
I can understand why Logos chose to distinguish between Topics, Factbook type of entries and headwords in order to facilitate correspondingly specialized tools, but instead of a Topic Guide, it would be much better to have a Thematic Guide and/or Thematic Search that presented the results of the query in the three pertinent categories: TG, FB and Lookup. Since the tools and the data they use are already in place, what we need is a report or search feature that brings the three together (where hits are organized according to their respective categories and not blended together. For instance, Sifra would produce: Topic Guide: 0 hits; Factbook: 0 hits; Lookup: 1 hit). A further advantage of such this Thematic Guide or Thematic Search would be that suggestions, when one types, could draw from all three sources (topical entries, persons, places, events, headwords). Perhaps a Personal Books section could be added as well while we are it (drawing on the newly implemented ability to search Milestones).
I don't think that it would be a step backward and it would certainly not require nor circumvent the need to keep on work on tagging and LCV. Moreover, such a tool would be consistent with what other guides are doing, which is to bring together search results from different categories (that could otherwise be searched separately). In fact the more I think of it, the more I think that this is PRECISELY what Logos should do.
0 -
A different, yet relevant, aspect of the plea for prioritizing quality over quantity is found here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/92419/643915.aspx#643915
0 -
One could add as well, that generally, Logos seems to cater more to a general rather than academic public. Here are a couple illustrations:
The help file is awfully inadequate for the kind of things academics want to do:
Yesterday, I wanted to know how to find places in the LXX where the Hebrew אוֹ is translated by καί. I looked in the search fields for ideas. I saw glosses in there. Possibly, I thought. But how to I use it, I mean, beside checking the box, what would be the corresponding syntax of the search. So I go to the help file and search for it. I only get a glossary definition of the field: "In a dictionary of lexicon, a brief explanation or definition of a word or phrase" no explanation on how to use it.
Today, I discovered that an example for Gloss is actually provided in the search window. I did not think of looking there because I know that not all search fields are documented there and that it tends to me more general stuff that is in there. However, why is it not also in the help file? And then there are those references to wikis. Forums and wikis are nice, but that's not a great solution for professional use. Once again, as in the case of Topic Guide, Factbook, Lookup, there are way too many sources and information is scattered. Finding what one needs is hit and miss or involves have to explore too many options.
This morning, I have "wasted" about 2 hours of my much needed time, posting questions, reporting data errors and bringing attention to issues as here. I do learn much in the end, but it is a long and unnecessarily long, time-wasting process. Information must be consolidated.
The same can be said about videos. They are nice as entry points but generally seem to be more catered to pastors and the general public than academics.
Lastly, the Logos Academic page needs to be much more oriented toward education than marketing as is currently the case. When I am going there, I see mainly eye-catching ads and basic advertisement of some features not a streamlined, well-designed gateway point into specialized use of Logos for scholarly work. As it is, its prominent goal is to get academics to buy Logos base packages.
0 -
Francis said:Mark Barnes said:
And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.
I am not sure I agree with you on this, Mark.
I didn't say I think it's a step back. I said that I think Logos think that.
I said so because I think that the topic section of the topic guide used to include dictionaries without LCV tagging, and this was removed once the LCV became reasonably comprehensive. By comparison, the Topic section of the Bible Word Study has this ability (although only for words that are in the Bible).
Francis said:Instead of adding a "search everything" link which, in my opinion, is really nothing new (I don't see any difference from the already existing basic search searching all resources in the library)
Search Everything combines Basic, Bible and Media searches into one search, and adds entity search (the Factbook). I don't use it, but I can see why some people - especially with smaller libraries - would find it useful to have everything in one place.
Francis said:I can understand why Logos chose to distinguish between Topics, Factbook type of entries and headwords in order to facilitate correspondingly specialized tools, but instead of a Topic Guide, it would be much better to have a Thematic Guide and/or Thematic Search that presented the results of the query in the three pertinent categories: TG, FB and Lookup. Since the tools and the data they use are already in place, what we need is a report or search feature that brings the three together (where hits are organized according to their respective categories and not blended together. For instance, Sifra would produce: Topic Guide: 0 hits; Factbook: 0 hits; Lookup: 1 hit). A further advantage of such this Thematic Guide or Thematic Search would be that suggestions, when one types, could draw from all three sources (topical entries, persons, places, events, headwords). Perhaps a Personal Books section could be added as well while we are it (drawing on the newly implemented ability to search Milestones).
That's pretty much what Factbook is for. If you look carefully you'll notice that they layout of Factbook changes slightly depending on whether you're viewing a Topic, Theme, Person, Place, Thing or Event. Each type has different sections, and if something exists in multiple datasets (e.g. as a Topic and as a Place), then the Factbook will show data from both sections.
The only significant difference is that you're asking for the Factbook to be enabled for topics that aren't LCV enabled, and to include results from dictionaries that aren't LCV enabled. That's your core 'complaint', and if that was the case, I think you'd be very happy with the way Logos is developing.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Francis said:
One could add as well, that generally, Logos seems to cater more to a general rather than academic public.
Many members of the general public see it the other way round (Logos is too complex; Logos has lots of tools I don't need).
Francis said:The help file is awfully inadequate for the kind of things academics want to do
The help file is just inadequate period. It's not just a problem for academics
Training is obviously an area I have an interest in. I know Logos is working on improving it, and I think you'll see some improvements in the near future. (Although you'll probably feel it won't go far enough, as I think I will. I'd like to see a detailed MEd course, included in Base Packages, that provides this type of training.)
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I'd like to see a detailed MEd course, included in Base Packages
Indeed: having to purchases courses or Morris Proctor materials in order to get documentation on how to use a software that we already paid for and that is inappropriately documented is not right.
I am curious about the upcoming stuff you are alluding to. I know that Logos is working on stuff. Hopefully, what I write is not perceived as whipping Logos. I am pointing out what seems problems for me in order to advocate improvements and perhaps contribute to getting attention on these issues. There are things I don't know (what is being developed but is not publicly known) or features in the software that are not evidently/sufficiently documented (and sometimes, things I am simply ignorant of).
0 -
Francis said:
Hopefully, what I write is not perceived as whipping Logos.
No, not at all. We all want a better product. Thankfully Logos wants that even more than we do!
Francis said:I am curious about the upcoming stuff you are alluding to.
I don't know a huge amount. I do know that there are now staff who are specifically focussing on training, which wasn't really the case before, and that the mini-tutorials will expand significantly over the next few months.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Francis said:
One could add as well, that generally, Logos seems to cater more to a general rather than academic public.
I agree although I'm not sure that is how Faithlife perceives itself. I believe their first priority is the pastor and associates. I think they struggle with where to land in terms of giving academics the pure tools and giving the pastors access to the information provided by those tools. But I also see growth in their features in both areas. And while I would like to see more documentation of specific types, I'm not sure more extensive help is the answer.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
But Logos know that many resources (particularly older ones) don't have the Heading Text field, which is why they introduced the Large Text field. This is automatically applied by the indexer to text over a certain size, and doesn't require tagging. It's a workaround for resources without heading tagging, and usually works OK. In this case though, the headings in the JE are too small to qualify.
Hi Mark,
Just wanted to express my appreciation for your comments. It's one thing to know how to do something, but it's even better to know why something works the way it does. You frequently explain the why, which is very helpful!
Blessings,
Michael
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I don't know a huge amount.
Mark if one was to take that as a general comment about you and Logos Bible Software we would protest strongly the opposite! [:)]
Will the tips and information you shared be going into the Wiki as a permanent, easy to find, resource?
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Michael said:
it's even better to know why something works the way it does
You should tell my wife that. Her eyes tend to glaze over when I launch into one of my explanations. It's why I come here [:D].
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Will the tips and information you shared be going into the Wiki as a permanent, easy to find, resource?
I'm largely responsible for the existing detailed search page which is four years old now, and obviously badly needs to be updated, or probably rewritten from scratch.
I'm focussing on video at the moment (an introduction to L6 that covers everything new - like this one I did for L5), but once that's done, I'll have a crack at that wiki page (if no-one else beats me to it). Probably my video script can be adapted for the Wiki.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
an introduction to L6 that covers everything new
If I may make a suggestion with regard to this exciting project -- and depending on how basic or detailed the video will be -- it would be useful if there were shorter but topic specific videos.
Of course, I suppose it depends on what use it is intended for and I am sure you have a clear idea of what you want it to be. I am merely expressing what I would be looking for beyond the very basic information that is already found on the Logos 6 new features page on Logos' website.
Also, and this is another suggestion, with regard to the wiki: I have used the search help pages in the past and found them very useful. However, I do not find the wiki website itself all that clear / practical to use. If it has not been done already, could not some of this be made into a personal book? I understand that the wiki is open to constant revisions and allows input from more users at a time. It is a strength and also a weakness. More users means that the material is not always of equal quality. But be that as it may -- and keeping in mind that I am not at present cognizant of all that would go into converting all this material to personal book format -- I do wonder if it could not be approached as beta releases of Logos: in other words, a new version with updates comes out every so often.
I am not sure how steadily the wiki material grows and how often a new release would be needed to avoid that the pbb be seriously outdated or behind its web-based counterpart. I am not advocating replacing the wiki altogether either. Just that much as it is more convenient to have wikipedia in Logos itself, I think it would be more convenient and powerful to have the wiki materials in Logos as well (again, if it does not exist already).
0 -
Francis said:
If I may make a suggestion with regard to this exciting project -- and depending on how basic or detailed the video will be -- it would be useful if there were shorter but topic specific videos.
That's what Logos are intending to do with this series. Is that what you had in mind? (I'm intending to do a few 5 minute videos like this.)
Francis said:If it has not been done already, could not some of this be made into a personal book?
It was done once, though it was a lot of work.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
That's what Logos are intending to do with this series. Is that what you had in mind?
Just looking at the topics, the duration of the videos but without having viewed any yet, I would think, yes, that's what I meant.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Her eyes tend to glaze over when I launch into one of my explanations
That sounds like my wife! You're not a former engineer as well, are you? [;)]
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Francis said:
If it has not been done already, could not some of this be made into a personal book?
It was done once, though it was a lot of work.
I have a PB on the search well under way ... I've been working off answers in the forums from You, Dave and Fr. Devin. Francis if you and others can search the forums for examples you'd like to see in such a book - simple to complex - you could speed the process up a great deal. I've been trusting that Dave and Mark would proof read it, even if I was aiming at a smaller audience than the forum.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I've been working off answers in the forums from You, Dave and Fr. Devin
Do you mean Dave Hooton?
MJ. Smith said:Francis if you and others can search the forums for examples you'd like to see in such a book - simple to complex - you could speed the process up a great deal.
MJ, I would love to help and I think this is a GREAT project. I don't think I would have the time to scour the forums for what is already there because it is such a mess. So much information is buried deep into threads and it is not obvious that it is so from thread titles. But additionally, forums now contain a great mixture of material that pertains to previous versions/betas with what is still current or the latest.
However, I do see as much more feasible to forward to you what comes up from now on (or has recently) in case you would not have seen it already yourself.
I do have a suggestion in terms of methodology, though it is strictly speaking, now going well beyond converting the wiki material to pbb. I would love to see the use of each available search field illustrated. This could include a short explanation and a basic example. In time, new and exciting ideas that take advantage of such searches could be added in an "advance section".
I assume you are, like me, and many others, limited in available time, so perhaps this is too ambitious a proposal for end-users.
I did have an idea that could help with this. For instance, in my mind, I see Mark as the most gifted of us in doing this kind of stuff. I think, from what I gather from his various posts, that he is a post-graduate researcher (though not sure). If he should be, he might be, like many others, short on funds. I think that, not thinking commercially at all, a bunch of us agreed to support an effort (say, a $1 paypal donation), it could compensation for such a substantial investment of time of benefit to us all. But perhaps Mark would not be interested or perhaps others would find this idea objectionable... Just thinking out loud.
Perhaps also, we could organize a collaborative project. For instance, some can be responsible for content (how to do searches) but others for formatting for pbb (milestones and the such). Instead of random contributions, there could be stubs that contributors can pick up when they have time and if they feel qualified to do so.
0
