Logos Lacks Lots of Links
Let me start off by saying that I’m mostly satisfied with Logos and very pleased with the expansion of resources, both in quantity and variety, that has taken place in the last few years. It has helped me to acquire a much better library than what circumstances would otherwise allow. The 500 book megapack last year and the L6 base packages in particular have benefited me a lot.
That said, I have been somewhat disappointed with the lack of expected links in many resources. As I buy mostly theology books, I can’t really speak to the situation with the core biblical resources, but there’s a surprisingly large number of links missing from the books I read, and this limits the utility of these resources by a significant degree.
Examples: they are legion. One that is particularly glaring is Thomas Oden’s three volume Systematic Theology. This resource is mostly useful for its very extensive references to primary works. Although I have many of them in my library, a considerable number are not linked: Barth’s Church Dogmatics, Ritschl’s Christian Doctrine of Justification, Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, the works of Arminius, the works of Menno Simons, and Harnack’s History of Dogma. Harnack in particular is a very big deal in the study of historical theology, but I don’t think have come across a single live link to it in any resource. The biggest problem—understandably so—seems to be with references to books that Logos produced after the resource making the citation; a lot of these I got via the Megapack. But that doesn’t explain all of them—Oden has been updated since Barth’s CD came out but does not link to it. I would think that would be a main priority for an update, but I don’t how much work this requires on Faithlife’s end to make a reality.
Another more recent one that stands out is the lack of links to Kelly’s Early Christian Creeds in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, both of which I acquired via an L6 Reformed base package. The Oxford Dictionary is what I would consider a “premium resource” (in contrast to some of the PD books acquired in bulk.) “Great!” I thought when I saw what I was getting in the package; “Not again,” I sighed when I realized that I couldn’t go from one to the other by a single click.
Another example, also from Reformed Gold, is Torrance’s The Christian Doctrine of God. Not surprisingly, there aren’t links to Mackintosh’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ—it just came out last week. What’s more surprising is the lack of linkage to Irenaeus and other church fathers. Aren’t those sort of standardized at this point?
There are many, many other examples, but this post is getting too long as it is.
In a different thread, Bob Pritchett expressed his commitment to rich tagging of resources. I’m glad to hear that. I bought these resources for the work of a lifetime. I don’t expect them to get fixed overnight; I do hope it’s reasonable to expect them to be fixed eventually. So, both for peace of mind and for guidance in buying future resources,* I’d like to discuss a few questions:
-
Is there a plan to improve the links in existing resources (especially theology books)?
-
What’s a reasonable amount of time to wait for this to happen for a particular book?
-
Will new releases have better tagging than some of these older ones? Will it ever be the case that links automatically become “live” after a previously unavailable cited resource is produced and acquired?
-
Is there anything that users can do to help this process?
I look forward to (hopefully) hearing from Faithlife staff as well as the experiences of other users with this issue. Thanks for reading this far!
*In most cases this is not a deal breaker. In the case of Oden, if I’d known the tagging was so bad (well, and didn’t have a coupon 
) I probably wouldn’t have bought it as it offers little advantage over the print edition.
Comments
-
Is there a plan to improve the links in existing resources (especially theology books)?
-
What’s a reasonable amount of time to wait for this to happen for a particular book?
- Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
- The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ
- ISBE (1915 edition)
- Irenaeus of Lugdunum
- A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement
- Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scripture
- Studies in Dogmatics: Sin
-
Is there anything that users can do to help this process?
Most of these questions have been discussed before, so I'm able to give you the answers that have been given before:
Logos pointedly make no promises to improve the tagging in older resources, on the basis that would raise costs beyond a sustainable level. When a new resources is added, they say that it should link, where appropriate, to all existing resources, but that they simply can't afford to check the 15-20,000 resources already available to see if they should link to the new resource.
So the answer to your first question is 'no'. (That said, they have in the past made very occasional exceptions for a handful of flagship resources such as AYBD. And, new tagging types [e.g. journals and sermons] have been extensively added to old resources quite recently.)
Will new releases have better tagging than some of these older ones? Will it ever be the case that links automatically become “live” after a previously unavailable cited resource is produced and acquired?
As I said, books should link to all existing books, so that means new books will have more links to old books. There are also some new tagging types in some resources (journals and sermons being the most obvious), which should be supported fully in new resources.
Will it ever be the case that links automatically become “live” after a previously unavailable cited resource is produced and acquired?
A new resource is tagged is to resources previously released, and resources in the pipeline, so you may find that resource links start working afterwards for books that were almost ready when the first was released.
In addition, there's a bibliographic datatype that's added to the bibliographies (not the main text) of new resources. This is is a little popup that gives bibliographic data, which you can copy to the clipboard. But there's also a web service attached to that popup, which asks Logos webserver whether than book exists in Logos format. If the server says 'yes', the resource should be added to the popup. (It's been perpetually broken though.) So, there's the intention that not-yet-made (and not-yet-planned) resources will be linked to via this means, although that will only be a link to the resource, not to the exact location, and only from the bibliography, not the main text.
Is there anything that users can do to help this process?
I'm not sure there is at the moment. I wonder whether the new Community Tags idea might be extended in the future to allow users to add these links, and for them to be shared with others. (I'm hopeful that might happen one day, even though Logos have never commented to that effect.)
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!
they simply can't afford to check the 15-20,000 resources already available to see if they should link to the new resource.
I don't know how this kind of task is done logistically, but when I read this kind of description, I have visions of Logos staff having to read every single page and manually input every bit of new data in each relevant location one at a time. And so, I cannot help but ask myself whether in this day and age in which the wonders of programming are so great (and often demonstrated in the features already existing in Logos), there could not be an easier way to make tagging work so that a new kind of referent could be added to it and henceforth apply across the board without requiring such a labor-intensive process.
I mean, let's say that I purchase a recent dictionary today and that it is tagged to all existing resources and those in the pipeline as of when it was tagged. What will happen in relation to resources that are released later (not yet in the pipeline)? Will be the addition of new links (if applicable) take place automatically (added code that takes effect in the whole resource and others to which it applies) or would each applicable resource need a more extensive, individual, re-tagging by logos staff?
Will be the addition of new links (if applicable) take place automatically (added code that takes effect in the whole resource and others to which it applies) or would each applicable resource need a more extensive, individual, re-tagging by logos staff?
Logos have internal tools that make tagging easier, but they still require a human editor to operate the tools. The tools will no doubt improve over time, but I don't we'll ever be in a situation where the human is eliminated altogether.
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!
A new resource is tagged is to resources previously released, and resources in the pipeline, so you may find that resource links start working afterwards for books that were almost ready when the first was released.
Unfortunately, in the Orthodox and Patristic offerings several resources have been released without tagging being completed. We're told that the remaining tagging is "in the queue" but where they fall in priority is an open question,
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."
Logos pointedly make no promises to improve the tagging in older resources, on the basis that would raise costs beyond a sustainable level.
This is what really gets me. Half the value proposition of Logos is resource linking within a large library. (The other half is searching/collections.) If the links aren't there then I'm not getting the functionality I paid extra for over a normal e-book.
If a resource references something that isn't yet in the Logos catalog it should be coded with a non-activated link that Logos can activate at a later date if the linked resource does come along.
If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?
This is what really gets me. Half the value proposition of Logos is resource linking within a large library. (The other half is searching/collections.) If the links aren't there then I'm not getting the functionality I paid extra for over a normal e-book.
If a resource references something that isn't yet in the Logos catalog it should be coded with a non-activated link that Logos can activate at a later date if the linked resource does come along.
If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?
I feel your pain [:)] However, wanted to point out that you pay a premium to buy Logos resources for the value they afford at the moment of purchase. There is never a promise or expectation of specific improvement of any given resource. I am the same way too - I am content right up to the point something cool is released and now I really want old resources to link to the new ones. Logos is committed to delighting customers by generally improving their resources, but they cannot, as a business, make a promise or a guarantee to link all existing resources to everything they produce in the future.
I feel your painHowever, wanted to point out that you pay a premium to buy Logos resources for the value they afford at the moment of purchase. There is never a promise or expectation of specific improvement of any given resource. I am the same way too - I am content right up to the point something cool is released and now I really want old resources to link to the new ones. Logos is committed to delighting customers by generally improving their resources, but they cannot, as a business, make a promise or a guarantee to link all existing resources to everything they produce in the future.
Part of the problem is you never how well-linked a resource is until you get into it and start using it. The quality comes off as very hit and miss. A user shouldn't have to have Logos's production chronology memorized in order to anticipate these things. There needs to be a better standard, and it needs to be made known when the resource is being sold. As I said, most of the time this is not a deal-breaker for me, but it has resulted in frequent disappointment.
Also, Logos's policy at the moment seems to be to produce just about every major Christian work ever printed. (That's an exaggeration, but not too far off the mark. [:D].) That's a good thing! But should it be the case that a book produced in 2013 will never, ever link to any of the thousands of books that are going to come out in the next decade? After all, that 2013 book will continue to be sold too. Its usefulness in the overall system should not be so strongly limited just because of its age.
I'm not expecting everything to be linked; I'm not expecting everything to be perfect. I do, however, think that many resources should be improved over what they are now in order to rightly bear the description of "high quality electronic books." Links to Barth and Harnack stand out to me because they are unwieldy, difficult to navigate multivolume works; they are also vitally important works for the discipline of theology. In my view works like that should be prioritized. Also, where there's always a reference system in place, as with the church fathers, there's not really an excuse for there not to be links, as in the Torrance book I cited.
Again, I don't know how to best address this problem. A combination of automation and manual linking is probably needed. As a customer, it's not my job to figure out how best to do it. But it is place to point out that this a real problem, and that while Faithlife does indeed produce a terrific product that I'm largely pleased with, this is an area where improvement is needed.
If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?
I completely agree with this. Logos touts there link integration, but I admit that many times they fall short of this. Most if not all of the "Classic" series have a many, many missing hyperlinks. I have not yet found one place where they have retroactively fixed a link.
--->I see this as a case of Logos (Bob) wanting to put out quantity over quality. I don't see how it could be difficult to do a search within an entire logos catalog for a citation for a new (or classic work) that is released into Logos and then link them. It was EXTREMELY frustrating this past year as I was doing an indepth study on Christology/Atonement and Stott would quote from a work that I had, but it wasn't linked to the "classic work." What good is that? I could highlight it and then search and find it that way. But I could do that in ANY other software.
Harnack in particular is a very big deal in the study of historical theology, but I don’t think have come across a single live link to it in any resource.
There are a few in more recent works. Using a simple search (for "history of dogma ii") I found links to Harnack in:
That's of a total of 18 resources returned by the search - so 39% of possible links were linked (in this very simple test).
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!
If users could create the hyperlink and then send it to Logos for approval it would make the task much easier for Faithlife Corp.
Just an idea that I am pretty sure I have already seen on the forums in the past
If users could create the hyperlink and then send it to Logos for approval it would make the task much easier for Faithlife Corp.
Just an idea that I am pretty sure I have already seen on the forums in the past
This would be a good idea if feasible.
The links seem to be "under construction" but they are critical in marketing, for example Logos advertises: "Adding the Talmuds to Logos Bible Software will provide the opportunity to link more references than almost any other set of books we haven’t yet produced".
For example the links to Talmud don't work (yet) in Beale: Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Some customers may be disappointed about this. Well, links are for the lazy people, and perrsistent users can find the references "manually" in Talmud.
I feel that I have a good library in Logos format and the Logos software has all the important features, and thus adding the missing links is the most critical feature for Logos to work on.
When discussing about links, I normally repeat my wish for intelligent links. For example dictionary links should be edition neutral, so that links to BAGD should point to BDAG if the user chooses that option
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
Firstly, requests should probably go on uservoice, or else on the suggestions forum at a minimum.The links seem to be "under construction" but they are critical in marketing, for example Logos advertises: "Adding the Talmuds to Logos Bible Software will provide the opportunity to link more references than almost any other set of books we haven’t yet produced".
For example the links to Talmud don't work (yet) in Beale: Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Some customers may be disappointed about this. Well, links are for the lazy people, and perrsistent users can find the references "manually" in Talmud.
I feel that I have a good library in Logos format and the Logos software has all the important features, and thus adding the missing links is the most critical feature for Logos to work on.
When discussing about links, I normally repeat my wish for intelligent links. For example dictionary links should be edition neutral, so that links to BAGD should point to BDAG if the user chooses that option
Secondly, that would post some pretty major problems.
If I cite your post, then you go back and revise it - my quote doesn't reflect your revision. So if you have a substantial change of position, or strike a sentence from the post because you see it as worthless (while I see it as critical) my post no longer makes sense if the quote would have automatically updated to reflect the "new edition".
Make sense?
So if the link went to BDAG, but next month the biblical autographs are discovered and revolutionize our understanding of hebrew greek and aramaic. then next year when the bdag 4 (or whichever number they are up to) is released, as the dictionary information has changed linking quotes from old monographs, commentaries and so forth to the new dictionary would just cause confusion.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
In both older and newer resources, links are great friends. It is worth putting a percentage of time into building / fixing links - IMHO. Logos is strengthened by the interconnectivity of resources. The ability to hoover over a link (for a quick synopsis) helps us to determine whether we want to bother trying to track it down at all. That is the time-saving power of Logos and it is one of the substantial reasons that many of us invest so heavily in our Libraries. Links broaden our perspectives, grant us additional insights and help us to serve HIM better.
Are all links created equal? Probably not, but the "missed opportunity to have a link makes the heart sick; but when it connects ... it is a tree of life". [Did I say that right?] [H]
I would like to understand the technical issue. Why can't all references be linked when the resource if first created whether there is an existing resource to link to or not such that the link becomes active when the resource is available? (Wheeler's law of indirection might apply?) Or at the very least marked up so that an internal tool can quickly flag links that need to be added when a resource becomes available and make those changes nearly or completely automatically. Maybe legacy issues with the existing system? Maybe linking is automated to the point that it relies on matching against know resource titles to create the links, but then re-running the automated linking would be trivial, no? I know what seems simple in my mind is rarely simple in practice, esp driving from the backseat so I'm definitely not criticizing, just curious.
I'd think a next-level feature for Logos would be to allow users to crowd source this kind of thing. There are lots of people who would likely be willing to help. This is what I would envision:
Suppose I am reading a long and see something that I think needs corrected, I could correct it instead of sending an email for Logos to correct. This corrected version would be sent to a few other who would double check my work. Wikipedia does it. This is how the Wordpress code is developed. There ought to be a way for Logos to do it.
Sean, these are all really important concerns, too important to be relegated to the General forum, where issues that Logos needs to see and address often get missed. It's a good forum for posting general comments for other users to read or general questions for other users to answer (not specific to any particular Logos product), but when it comes to actually getting heard by Faithlife, it's not great. They don't tend to read this forum much. For something like your post, I would suggest you direct it to someone specific at Faithlife via email.
I know you want to hear about other user experiences, which you will, I'm sure. And I know that Faithlife has heard users' complaints about the lack of tagging before, but they need to hear about specific resources where it is particularly bad, and a targeted email would be a good way to go.
You could report the problem via the Report Typo tool (for each resource that is problematic, select one particular thing which should be a link and isn't, and put a comment in the comment field describing the lack of tagging in that resource and specifics like you've given in this post). That will at least go to the right department, but it will go into a huge queue and might not get addressed with as much urgency as if you emailed someone about the problem. And it's tedious. So I'd email someone. Problem is, I'm not sure who. I'm going to make some inquiries for you and try to draw this post to someone's attention.
Would this actually help? Does Logos even want this kind of feedback. These are not actual Typos as much as requests for improvement.
Josh Hunt
Bible Study Lessons
Sunday School Lessons That Have Groups Talking
Yes. They have told us to use the Report Typo tool to report missing links, and have told us to use the comment field when there's a systemic problem in a book that we don't want to report every single instance of. So, combining these two makes sense. So yes, they want this feedback. Will it actually help? Not sure, and there's nothing to do about that. Just try and hope it makes a difference.
Sorry for my lateness in responding to this thread.
We really do appreciate the feedback. Thanks.