not returning results in NIV84

I am guessing that this happens because the NIV may not be tagged with the right dataset, although I am not sure

Yes, the NIV (84) Old Testament does not have the required tagging

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854202#Comment_854202

That's helpful thanks. Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

On a separate note is there a way to see which resources support what?

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854204#Comment_854204

That's helpful thanks. Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

On a separate note is there a way to see which resources support what?

Brilliant question! I would like to know this as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854204#Comment_854204

Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

Presumably because its not an error - there are just no results found

On a separate note is there a way to see which resources support what?

You basically need the Bible to have a "Reverse Interlinear" for the relevant part - New Testament, Old Testament, Apocrypha etc.

You can see this by clicking the info button "i" at the top right of the resource and scrolling down to the bottom. You are looking for RVI:???NT/OT

As you can see the NIV84 just has NT whereas the NIV2011 has OT as well

Or in the resource itself - enable the interlinear button and click on a word. If the ribbon populates it has the RI tagging

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854210#Comment_854210

Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

Presumably because its not an error - there are just no results found

Whilst I agree that it is not an error, as such, to my mind it is an action which doesn't make sense and would be helpful to the user to trap. Why would you allow users to search a resource which does not support a particular feature? In other parts of the search Logos handles this more elegantly. For example running a search of top bibles (or indeed All bibles) for <Thing Ark of the Covenant> where top bibles include NIV84 produces the following:

E.g. NIV84, which does not include this dataset is automatically excluded. Where as returning zero results doesn't, because the user cannot tell the difference between this resource doesn't support this type of search and a genuine zero results found. I do appreciate that the search in NIV84 does produce zero results because it is not supported - but you see my point?!

Thanks for your help on the other points - most helpful!

thanks

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854212#Comment_854212

I do appreciate that the search in NIV84 does produce zero results because it is not supported - but you see my point?!

yes - but restricting it could be quite a challenge and I think would probably be inconsistent with the way other parts of the software works?

What, for example, if you were doing the search on the entire Bible?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854217#Comment_854217

Well, the Bible has two testaments which, from what you are saying, are either supported or unsupported. So a simple message indicating why no results from the OT are shown could be displayed, based on whether the search range covers an unsupported section of the resource. Just as it would when searching an OT book etc. I understand now how it works, but my point is that it could be more user friendly and indeed consistent with how the search works elsewhere!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854219#Comment_854219

Well, the Bible has two testaments which, from what you are saying, are either supported or unsupported

In the example I used that is the case.

Sometimes the level of support is more granular - the new "Figurative Language" capability only currently covers the Gospels.

And it would be strange - in my view - if running a search across the New Testament to have a status message calling out that books other than the Gospels aren't appropriately tagged

and indeed consistent with how the search works elsewhere

and thinking a bit more about this I can't think of any examples where search works as you are suggesting. Are you able to suggest some? I am concerned I am missing your point somewhat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854223#Comment_854223

I am guessing that this happens because the NIV may not be tagged with the right dataset, although I am not sure

Yes, the NIV (84) Old Testament does not have the required tagging

That's helpful thanks. Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

On a separate note is there a way to see which resources support what?

Any idea why Logos doesn't produce a helpful message when running a search like this against a resource which doesn't support it?

Presumably because its not an error - there are just no results found

And it would be strange - in my view - if running a search across the New Testament to have a status message calling out that books other than the Gospels aren't appropriately tagged

Paul I think it is an excellent idea in situations like this when a user is searching a specific resource that the software has the smarts built in to educate the user that the search they are trying to run will not work in that situation because there is no data set / tagging etc availble in that resource.

For power users who are already aware that this sort of search can't be done it may seem as not required but then they won't run this sort of search in the first place and so won't normally see this educational message that might actually be very helpful to other users, as it would have been to you on this occasion.

At some point in executing the search, I don't know at what point, the software must become aware the data to search against doesn't exist and so with the help of a programmer at that point this fact can be translated into a human friendly message of why the software was unable to find any search results.

In the example Graham has given about Figurative Language the return message back to the user doesn't need to call out the books of the NT not supported, rather it simply needs to alert the user to the fact that (as currently stands) only the gospels are supported. This then educates the user on two levels - why when the tried to run a search in relation to figurative language dataset on say the writings of Paul that it did not work but also what books the can run it against and expect to get a result. This would be very valuable for a use who is trying to .learn / understandi searching against this dataset and might reduce the need for support calls / forum questions.

So to me would it be strange, not at all, what is strange is the software is not adopting approaches like this to better educate and direct users. If this sort of thinking was applied to the output of complex searches then it would not be inconsistent but actually become a consistent part of the software that I think non power users would actually find helpful as they seek to become better able to learn how to construct better searches rather than being left scratching their heads as to why doesn't this work, feeling its all to complicated and then via word of mouth telling their friends and family don't bother with Logos Bible Software, its just too hard to use.

I love the complexity offers but lets just make it a bit more user friendly for those not quite ready to embrace the flexibility, how on earth are they going to know to do the following to work out why a search didn't work, they possibly won't even understand what part a reverse interlinear plays in the search or how are they going to know documentation for the Figurative Language Dataset exists in their library.

On a separate note is there a way to see which resources support what?

You basically need the Bible to have a "Reverse Interlinear" for the relevant part - New Testament, Old Testament, Apocrypha etc.

You can see this by clicking the info button "i" at the top right of the resource and scrolling down to the bottom. You are looking for RVI:???NT/OT

As you can see the NIV84 just has NT whereas the NIV2011 has OT as well

A guiding hand from the software is a good thing IMHO

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854212#Comment_854212

Whilst I agree that it is not an error, as such, to my mind it is an action which doesn't make sense and would be helpful to the user to trap. Why would you allow users to search a resource which does not support a particular feature?

Because one often is searching a collection of Bibles - some of which support the feature and some of which do not. We don't want to have to build separate collections nor update the collections when a new RI is released.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854247#Comment_854247

Whilst I agree that it is not an error, as such, to my mind it is an action which doesn't make sense and would be helpful to the user to trap. Why would you allow users to search a resource which does not support a particular feature?

Because one often is searching a collection of Bibles - some of which support the feature and some of which do not. We don't want to have to build separate collections nor update the collections when a new RI is released.

This would somewhat be handled if the metadata was exposed to the user interface in regards to whether the reverse interlinear existed or not when it came to the building on dynamic collections but would quickly break down as being useful for resources like this where the RI exists for the NT but not OT and would potentially not be something that would help a non power user out in this situation. So MJ both your's and Paul's conundrums still exist and the most helpful solution would be to educate the user who attempts a search against a non-suitable resource that no search results are the expected scenario. And so deal with Graham's conundrum about how much detail to put in that message in the search results output maybe it could be done via a simple statement, in this scenario, that not all bibles are built with a Reverse Interlinear that is required to run this search so results form some bibles may not be availble. A link could then be provided that would take the user to documentation to assist the user in finding out more about RI"s and most importantly a list of resources that do currently have RI'. This would handle situations where either a single resource or group of resources is being searched,

For those where this was simply a mea culpa I forgot about that, they would be quickly reminded why they weren't getting the results they expected and for those just learning about all of this they are directed to further information to help get them from the "why didn't that work - software is broken - I need to ring support" stage to the mea culpa stage.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854247#Comment_854247

Whilst I agree that it is not an error, as such, to my mind it is an action which doesn't make sense and would be helpful to the user to trap. Why would you allow users to search a resource which does not support a particular feature?

Because one often is searching a collection of Bibles - some of which support the feature and some of which do not. We don't want to have to build separate collections nor update the collections when a new RI is released.

Consider also a search with multiple terms <Thing Ark of the Covenant> OR ark. If searching one resource (or multiple resources) this search may still return results, even if one or more don't have any Thing tagging.

The feedback is a nice idea, but it very rapidly gets complicated to communicate the problem to the user.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854278#Comment_854278

There is always going to be another way of consruct a search query making not so simple to provide feedback but I still think their is value in it when we talk about the query the OP was originally discussing rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water by looking for reasons not to do it simply because we can come up with endless search scenarios - that is the beauty of the complexity of what the software does allow us to do but we should t go all weak at the knees because of that beauty.

Lets even consider proving that extra information to the user before they construct a seach. When you first open a search panel a list of sample queries is provided. Why not put a note there with a link to further information about limitations of what type of resources these various search examples will work with and those they won't. This eliminates the concern about be wide range of different ways searches can be constructed but still provides a means for better informing users about how to construct more effective searches.

Whilst I agree that it is not an error, as such, to my mind it is an action which doesn't make sense and would be helpful to the user to trap. Why would you allow users to search a resource which does not support a particular feature?

Because one often is searching a collection of Bibles - some of which support the feature and some of which do not. We don't want to have to build separate collections nor update the collections when a new RI is released.

Consider also a search with multiple terms <Thing Ark of the Covenant> OR ark. If searching one resource (or multiple resources) this search may still return results, even if one or more don't have any Thing tagging.

The feedback is a nice idea, but it very rapidly gets complicated to communicate the problem to the user.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854278#Comment_854278

Consider also a search with multiple terms <Thing Ark of the Covenant> OR ark. If searching one resource (or multiple resources) this search may still return results, even if one or more don't have any Thing tagging.

The feedback is a nice idea, but it very rapidly gets complicated to communicate the problem to the user.

Thanks all for the feedback. I appreciate that the use cases are more complex than the one I originally presented. However the issue still remains that for new users there is no feedback about why the results are as they are (e.g. no results, incomplete results etc). Whilst this may be obvious, as it was in my case, as I knew the Ark appeared in Joshua this is not the case with all searches. When a search is done including resources which do not support a given dataset a simple message could be presented:

Not all resource(s) could be searched for the search term. Find out more.

With a link to the help file giving further information (as discussed in this thread). This not only informs the user but also handles the more complex use cases too. My suggestion is simply that the user is given better feedback to know that their results may not include results from all selected resources. I think that software (generally) has an obligation to inform the user when it is not able to act in a way which is inline with what the user has requested. An example of this would be a Google search which excludes results due to data protection laws in europe, the user is informed simply that not all results that may exist have been included:

I think this is a helpful approach for the user and would enhance the product for all users. I hope that this helps clarify what I am saying.

thanks

Paul

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/854329#Comment_854329

[Y]