Quality control in Logos 6 - a new perspective

I threw up my hands on updating the wiki because links to material explaining what the BSL is was deemed too detailed. I believe that the user base of Logos is too broad for them to take responsibility for training - one problem I ran into was using the term "protocanonical" which I was informed would not be understood.

MJ, first of all, I am very grateful for all the work that you and others put in the wiki. Yet I think that your experience is not quite indicative of what documentation should be like, the problems of its inherent limitations and whether this requires instructors outside of Faithlife. I say this because I assume that as a wiki writer, you have not signed up to be bogged down in the difficult process you describe (like deciding the difficulty level of what you write). When I read the wiki, I don't check who wrote what, so I am not making these comments about you or anyone in particular, but for my part, I consider that while the material on the wiki reflects 1) knowledge of Logos and 2) willingness to help matched by hard work, it does not translate into 3) instructional skill. So, some of the questions you raise in your post really have to do with "how to teach Logos" the same way you would ask how do I teach the gospels to 1) young believers? 2) long-time disciples? 3) seminarians? Questions such as using the word "proto-canonical" would come in play there. 

The idea I have in mind (and perhaps there are better ones) is that Logos must match in its documentation it's multi-level target audiences. Part of this is already reflected in online video training where you have a gradation from basic concepts to "advanced". I believe that this is needed for the help file as well. Not everyone will want to have read too complicated material on case frames for instance because not everyone wants to make an advanced use of it or is at the place yet where they see a need for it.

In many ways, the basic material is already found in the help file, though perhaps some simple examples of use would be helpful. You may say, there are videos for that. Granted. Videos have their use, but one does not always want to watch a whole video in order to find a specific bit of info. At the end of the day, nothing replaces the fundamental role of well-written documentation. Same to be said about the complementarity of what can be found on the wiki and the forums: those who (like me) use Logos as a professional tool, don't have time to wander through the forum maze in search of a bit of information. The basic level should mention in non-technical terms and briefly some of the limitations most likely to apply at that level. A link to "for more information" could connect to material in the intermediate and/or advanced sections. Beyond the basic level, I think there needs to be an intermediate section and an advanced section, with illustrations (non-exhaustive of course) of further applications. 

As far as style, it is instructive to compare MP materials with the help file. The first is instruction, the other plain documentation. Both are needed. I agree with the comment made before that Logos is a premium software: I strongly believe that as such, it should include both documentation and instruction. I am not sure that I see any reason why what MP or Falahee are doing cannot be done internally by Faithlife. I see the need for training as needed because even though I do postgraduate research, I have had this experience where I go into a resource that introduces a new concept and basically all I am reading is definitions. There is no context, no easing into the topic or showing how to use it. Documentation must be more than basic definitions of what each button, click or label is. It is conceivable that the classic help file might no longer be suitable to the kind of tool Logos has become (though perhaps "not enough" is more accurate). Perhaps indeed, better documentation and training is to be delivered in the form of resources but it should NOT be something you have to buy extra, but an integrated feature of base packages. You get the datasets and tools = you get proper documentation to know how you can use them!

Your post does raise some valid questions about how far out some features venture. Danove is not the inventor of case frames but a pioneer in applying them to biblical studies. I have limited knowledge of his work (though he is on my to read list). I know however, from reading other linguistic ventures in biblical studies, that the theoretical underpinnings can be very complex (and often debated) and certainly out of reach for most people who are not versed in linguistics or do not have a high educational level (this is a generalization of course). I don't expect the Logos help file to reproduce Danove's work! On the other hand, to the extent that this feature has been added to base packages that are addressed to all users (e.g., Gold) and advertised as a selling feature, it necessarily raise the question: OK, I got this, how do I use it? I don't expect Logos, for instance, to train its users in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek grammar because it does have a grammatical relationship section in the Exegetical Guide. At the Academic end of the spectrum of its customer base, it is (reasonably) assumed that there will be expertise matching the specificity of the tools. This does not dispense for basic introduction (not of grammar, but of the grammatical relationship tool purpose and use) for all users (unless Logos moved toward a "Professional" or "Academic" package). But MOST IMPORTANTLY, even for those who have expertise, they need to know how Logos implements the feature, what choices they have made, what limitations they know of, etc. In other words, we need to know how this concept works in the Logos feature! This is where stuff like info about morphologies come into play. And, as indicated before, pointing us to external websites is not a good solution.

It is possible to do the Microsoft type of solution: the help file connects to material on their website for more information (including videos). Personally, I am not crazy about this and we always need to keep in mind that if Logos will help people all around the world, in countries where Internet access is limited, in remote areas where high speed is not available and among those who have less means and missionaries, it should not depend excessively on finding documentation on the Internet. It should also be added about the value of the forum for training that it does have value but it is a mess and one may have to wait an indeterminate time to have an answer to a question (answers that can be of varying usefulness but that one has to read through just in case!).

Finally, and returning to the resource format idea versus the classic help file question, I think that Mobile Education modules offer a good example of what it could be like. As much as I am grateful to have gotten a bonus course on Bible Study with my purchases around Logos 6 (and consider Bible Study of much greater value than expertise in Logos), courses on Logos would be much more useful. Let Faithlife develop the courses (if this is deemed a desirable format). Possibly, let there be different levels (basic, intermediate, advanced) and then let them be provided to users as part of their purchase. Does that sound like MP material? Yes. And, I would be extremely happy to see -- as part of the frequent update downloads we get -- something like "new help file section: case frames, basic examples" (or whatever else); in other words, ongoing updates to the documentation, not just the program itself.

To summarize, documentation and training cannot be thought of as an add-on or side-dish. It is an integral part of what Logos has become. It needs to be allotted the resources correspondingly. I apologize for the length of this post.

And don't underestimate the level of training and documentation (or even specifications) I have under my belt.

I you think I implied anything of the sort, you misconstrued me. I have very high respect for your level of training and documentation, which I often find superior to my own.

I do not want Logos/Verbum to tell me how to interpret and use the data they provide for me. However, I do respect the scholarship of the teams building the datasets, trust them as legitimate sources and want them to tell me exactly what their tags mean and don't mean.

I am not sure how you define where one ends and the other starts. However, I don't think anyone is saying that Logos should be prescriptive in their documentation. It should be descriptive, illustrative and transparent.