Why do I get this:
In spite of this:
And that:
John 1:12, for instance, is found in both lists.
What am I doing wrong?
For some reason it looks as though you need to use parentheses
Good find!
Apparently, it makes no difference which terms the parentheses are applied to:
I wonder if the two occurrences of AND introduce some form of ambiguity which may not be apparent here but could be in other contexts?
Another question:
I don't understand John 7:5 here. The brothers are the subject of the verb. Or is "subject" used in a different sense?
I've had the same question before, but with a different subject. In your example, apart from John 7:5, John 2:11 and John 12:44 do not have Jesus as grammatical subject either, and yet those results are also present. Either the "subject" category is not the syntactical subject, or there are a lot of incorrectly classified subjects, enough to warrant a thorough review of the entire database.
Good find! Apparently, it makes no difference which terms the parentheses are applied to:
Looks like a bug to me. It might be worth reporting in a separate thread if Bradley or one of the developers don't see this one.
John 2:11 and John 12:44 do not have Jesus as grammatical subject either
I did not mention these in my question about these because I noted that Jesus is the subject of another verb in these verses and thought that perhaps this is why they showed up.
Looks like a bug to me
Why do you think it is a bug? In this specific search, I cannot see what difference it could make. If I say I want (Francis AND Graham) AND Devin, or (Graham and Devin) AND Francis, or (Devin AND Francis) AND Graham. I should still get the same results. It would make more of a difference with a different combination of operators (try replace the second AND with OR). In the latter case, parentheses would be critical to make sure the results are correct: is it (Devin AND Graham) OR Francis or is it Devin AND (Graham OR Francis)? Perhaps when there is more than two operators, Logos requires parentheses by default to avoid this kinds of ambiguities?
You get that because of a (dare I say it?) ...bug. This will be fixed in an upcoming release. As pointed out, in the meantime parentheses around two of the search terms will resolve the issue.
Ryan
This will be fixed in an upcoming release.
[Y]
Ryan, any info on the subject: issue mentioned above as well?
No info from me but I've passed the question on to those with a better understanding of the underlying data.
