NASB in Paragraph Format

It didn't come through right.  What I was trying to show is that the text alignment is separate from the verse number.  Like in list format:

1. Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.”
2. Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Thanks for the replies...

Disclaimer: I really do have a life [:D] and do not hold the issue of the formatted appearance of the NASB95 in my Bible software as a determining factor for the quality of my life or eternal existence (smile again).

Having said that...the visual filter work-around does not provide the same appearance as the original (the pericopes and paragraphs are shoved together, etc.), unless that has been changed in the last day or two.

In the end I would guess my preference has to do with some mild level of eidetic reference for me.  This after 20 years of usage and notes...highlighting...bold text.  You know, sort of like the visual/mental references for those of us who are old enough to have highlighted/notated paper Bibles until they were worn out.

AND...I have had no thought whatsoever that this was some "money grab" ruse on the part of FL.  
Still, I would be glad to pay for the resource in the old format if it were made available.

Thanks guys...

I use NASB95 for many reasons, one of which is the line-per-verse presentation. And while some may have this attitude...

Thomas Sterbens said:

Still, I would be glad to pay for the resource in the old format if it were made available.

...I am not so accommodating. I'm not going to pay for this resource again. You see, I actually PAID $$ for NASB95 back in the 90s, before it was added to the base packages. It wasn't cheap, either. I'm NOT going to pay for it again. Not only that, but I fully expect FL to restore my NASB95 back to its original condition very soon, and they can then go back to figuring out how to offer a paragraph format for those who want that. I have no interest in such a thing. I personally feel ROBBED and at this point I'm just biding a short window of time before I start gathering names of similarly aggrieved parties.

RESTORE IT EXACTLY AS BEFORE ASAP.

I can't imagine that they would produce a separate resource. That's totally unnecessary and would bring on even more problems.

I agree that FL made a few mistakes: a) releasing without better testing, and b) by not ensuring that line-by-line was the default.

And I know it's the accumulation of similar goofs over the years that makes it worse.

But, Mistake made, it's now more helpful to focus on the FIX. They are continuing to make changes and updates to correct it. That tells us they do not intend to release a separate resource. Nor should they! They are perfectly capable of making this work as a single resource. With all the same formatting and functionality. The best way to move this forward is to take Mark's example and post bug reports for every difference that needs to be fixed.

Disciple of Christ (doc) said:

FL leadership refusing to answer your question is the equivalent of the somebody making a rude gesture.

Don't be daft. Failing to answer one forum post directly (out of a ton) while actively working on addressing the issue raised in broad terms and regularly communicating their progress/intent is hardly the same as a rude gesture. It just isn't.

Loads of people campaigned for Faithlife to update the resource to paragraph formatting, and they did so. They realised that people weren't happy with the visual filter to display verses on new lines, so they've released multiple updates in a short span of time to improve the behaviour and confirmed that they're still working on it now.

Disciple of Christ (doc) said:

James McAdams said:

Don't be daft.

James you make a lot of valuable contributions to these forums with your questions about FL's products and your sharing of your experiences and learnings about the products.  This is not one of your finest moments.

You have allowed yourself to fall into the trap of attacking a fellow customer because you don't share their experience of the company or view on this particular issue. These forums are for all customers to provide feedback, whether it be positive or negative, in regards to their experiences with the company and it's products.

A customer focused company wants to know what both engages and disengages their customers and will respond to both of these scenarios. Customers who are disengaged by the actions of FL on this issue feel their concerns and in particular a direct question on the topic are not being answered adequately.

You do not have a right to tell disengaged customers their feedback is not welcome because you consider it 'daft'.  And sadly it has not been you alone.  There have been others from the paragraph format camp who think the appropriate way to deal with this divide is to attack the person instead of simply sticking to sharing their views and experiences. On the other hand I can't recall one person who prefers the original format launch an attack against the person of someone of the opposing view. We have simply stuck to highlighting the fact we are not happy with the way FL has handle this and are not happy they are not answering direct questions that have been raised.

James McAdams said:

They realised that people weren't happy with the visual filter to display verses on new lines, so they've released multiple updates in a short span of time to improve the behaviour and confirmed that they're still working on it now.

If you were being balanced and fair James you would recognise like Randy that FL has made a few mistakes in the handling of this issue and its FL's lack of openness in admitting the same re-enforces my view they are being rude towards a segment of their customers.

Randy W. Sims said:

I agree that FL made a few mistakes: a) releasing without better testing, and b) by not ensuring that line-by-line was the default.

And I know it's the accumulation of similar goofs over the years that makes it worse.

FL over the years have not learnt from their 'similar goofs'.  They get an idea in their head, don't fully think through all the issues and impacts upon customers and run with the idea prematurely and then afterwards expect customers to sit back and accept the mess they create while they fix it up after the action has been thrust upon customers. 

James I have read all of the posts on this topic, I am well aware of this fact and if you have read everything you would see that I have at one point made acknowledgement of their efforts.  My concern is not with efforts of those who are trying to improve the visual filter. I recognise this is probably taking them away from other things they might have been otherwise focusing on improving and they are doing their best in a short time frame to get updates out. The problem you are missing because you have decided others are not allowed to share a view point different to yours is that the leadership of FL are not answering directly how they are going to give back to those who had taken away from them something they paid for and never asked to be changed because it was not broken. Whether you agree or not the behavior of the leadership of FL towards customers seeking answers to these questions is rude.

I would not like it if they revert back to line format- I find no shortcomings with how I use the paragraph format.

Whyndell Grizzard said:

I would not like it if they revert back to line format-

Tough, but they don't have much choice. They face legal action if they don't return what they've stolen.

Taking from Peter to pay Paul is never a good option.

Say whatever you want. There's ONE Bible that has line-per-verse formatting, and rather than be content with ALL BUT ONE, folks like you want ALL. This whole scenario reminds me of 2 Sam. 12:1-5. In this dispute, there's a safe side to be on, and there's a side that reaps whirlwind. If I wasn't using L3 right now, I would be dead in the water. My 20 years investment in Logos--and I'm talking about my time investment in terms of making thousands of notes rather than the $35K+ financial hook--would be essentially obliterated. MY LIFE IS IN THOSE NOTES and they are enmeshed in my copy of NASB95. I'm not going to let that disappear without a fight. So, yeah, if it's necessary, I'll gather all of those who feel the same way and will do whatever it takes to stay alive--because that's what this is for me.

Hmmm ... 1 Cor 6:1-7?  [*-)]

.

James McAdams said:

Disciple of Christ (doc) said:

You have allowed yourself to fall into the trap of attacking a fellow customer because you don't share their experience of the company or view on this particular issue.

I haven’t attacked anyone. I told someone not to be daft.  

James if you want to continue to tell yourself you have a right to call people daft because they have a different view to you on an issue and then I will pray for you. 

James you are not part of the leadership of FL, you do not represent them in any way yet to presume your answers should be satisfactory for those who have asked for the leadership of FL to speak. I am sorry but it does not work that way, you are just a customer who seems to think speaking rudely to other customers is ok and should result in them going away. James all you are doing is fanning them flames when you continue to directly attack other people's viewpoints instead of sticking to expressing your own views.

So no matter how much you want to deny it and try and cloud thes issue with your personal judgements on what other people have said,  or continue to not read everything I have said and try and tell me again what I have already acknowledged, you have done nothing to convince me that FL has answered all questions and their decision to continue to not answer all of those questions is rude. 

DOC, I'm never pretended to speak for Faithlife - I'm making a similar point to yours on appropriate language - accusing Faithlife of being abusive. I don't know if "daft" means something different in the states (not actually sure if that's where you're from, but judging by your replies I suspect something's been lost in translation), but in the UK it's a mild term to describe someone being "a bit silly" - which that particular accusation obviously is. I've never said people should be happy with my words on the matter - I'm really not pushing any view on what people should be happy with. All I'm doing is saying that a company actively working to resolve the concerns of a few users (albeit not in the way or the speed you would like) is not abusive. That's all I'm saying. If you read the way that Faithlife have responded as abuse, you have misread the situation by any reasonable measure.

You can complain, ask for a fix, say the issue hasn't been resolved, ask for updates, ask for better responses and say they've let you down - that's all fine. But they have not abused anyone here. I won't call it daft, if the word upsets you, but it's terribly silly.

You didn’t just say it was rude in a generic way, you said it was equivalent to a rude gesture.

Not answering the phone might be rude, but it’s passive. Rude gestures are active - they’re deliberate acts designed to cause offence, thus abusive. Hence it’s not a suitable comparison for what’s happening with Faithlife, and it’s silly to use that kind of language.

i’m really not making a contentious point here. Rude gestures are abusive. Abuse hasn’t happened. Failures can be discussed using less loaded language.

Don’t keep turning that obvious point into an attack on you or anyone else. Corrections are not attacks. It’s part of discipleship. Anyway, I think it‘s wise if I leave the convo.

James McAdams said:

You didn’t just say it was rude in a generic way, you said it was equivalent to a rude gesture.

Not answering the phone might be rude, but it’s passive. Rude gestures are active - they’re deliberate acts designed to cause offence, thus abusive. Hence it’s not a suitable comparison for what’s happening with Faithlife, and it’s silly to use that kind of language.

i’m really not making a contentious point here. Rude gestures are abusive. Abuse hasn’t happened. Failures can be discussed using less loaded language.

Don’t keep turning that obvious point into an attack on you or anyone else.

James 

1) you call me daft and silly because I have a different view to you and are unwilling to accept that your choice of words towards me was inappropriate

2) you make false accusations claiming I said  FL was abusive when I have never done so 

3) you don't know me at all and yet after doing the above you presume you can speak into my life and correct me for something I haven't done

4) you try to justify all of this to yourself so you do not have to admit your wrong dong by calling it 'discipleship'

James how can you think after doing 1) & 2) above that you have a relationship of trust that allows you to speak into my life? Seriously how can you think that and think think that I am going to accept you speaking a lie about what I said as a correction? You just don't get it do you?

And all of this simply because you dont agree with myself or others who prefer the NASB95 in the format it was originally.

You are the one who is trying to turn attention away from what those who prefer the original one verse per line format. 

James McAdams said:

 Anyway, I think it‘s wise if I leave the convo.

It is a pity you did not show such wisdom before using derogatory terms about me, and then before making false accusations, and then before trying to take a false moral high ground claiming you have earnt a position of trust in my life and can presume to correct me all in order to continue to avoid admitting your initial wrong doing.

Tank you Ben!

Thank you Ben and thank you FL for respecting the needs of all customers with this decision.

Ben Amundgaard (Faithlife) said:

Hi all,

Thank you all for your feedback on this resource. We want to address the concerns of customers who want to maintain the original one-line/one-verse formatting of the NASB. At the same time, we want to address the desire from other customers to have the paragraph layout. After examining all of the options, we’ve come up with a solution that we hope will address both of those issues.

We are going to revert the current NASB resource to its original one-verse/one-line formatting. At the same time, we will create a new paragraphed NASB resource. They will be separate resources but the new resource will be available for free to everyone who owns the original resource.

All your notes will be tied to the original NASB resource. However, with corresponding notes and highlights you’ll be able to see them in the new resource as well.

We will sell both resources as standalone products on logos.com.

We hope to ship all of this in August. I’ll let you know when we have a firm date. 

Thank you for your patience. 

Ben Amundgaard (Faithlife) said:

We are going to revert the current NASB resource to its original one-verse/one-line formatting. At the same time, we will create a new paragraphed NASB resource. They will be separate resources but the new resource will be available for free to everyone who owns the original resource.

First of all, thank you very much for thinking through this and being willing to put in the work to get something that works. This being said, my gut reaction to your proposed course of action is that it cannot be good that two versions of the same product will be produced and can coexist in one's library. We have had difficulties in similar situations with SESB texts for instance.

I can foresee that one may accidentally open one text and annotate it and only realise later that they would have wanted to work with the other. Buyers will most likely be confused by the choice and keep asking the same question about it over and over again. 

I really don't mean to be a naysayer here, but it just does not seem like the right solution.

What I would propose is this:

First, you cannot make a big change to a mainstay Bible and not expect that many liked it the way it was. Listening to the desire for a paragraph format was right, simply changing to it was not.

With that in mind, I think it is right to revert to the original version since the change is unwelcome by so many. At the same time, there must be perseverance in seeking a better solution for those who want a paragraph format. 

Personally, I am not sure that it is practical in the long term to try to reproduce printed Bible formats (unless there is something particularly distinctive about it and it would denature the product to change the format). I am wondering if it would be best to standardise format. Have two options in settings: lines or paragraphs applicable to all Bibles. Then the visual filter for Bible text only, one line at a time, can be used in addition to it (after all, it is not redundant in relation to the original NASB format).

That's my two cents. My proposal could be short-sighted, unpractical or meeting with disapproval from others; Regardless, I think that creating two resources sounds good in the short term but probably is maladapted for the longer term.

Thanks for the hard work.

alabama24 said:

Right now we are hearing from those who don't like this change, but for years we heard from those who wanted it. Oftentimes it is easy to think everyone agrees with you when it seems that there are so many agreeing in the forums. The truth is that both sides have a vocal minority... but that population is important to FL

[Y]

The "Format" issue is like so many other issues that a local church deals with - Service times (do we offer Christian Ed between worship, concurrent or in another time/day?); worship style (Traditional, Gospel, Contemporary, Modern, Blended, Eclectic?); Age-graded vs. whole family; bigger congregation and/or multiple campus and/or plant new churches, etc. It is easy to assume that "everybody thinks like me" but I learned long ago that every decision effects those who are already "in the fold" or those who would have been in the fold had a different decision been made.

Yes, I know some forum users will be quick to point out that Faithlife is a business and not a church so customers have a right to demand what they want. True, but in any store (even a virtual, online experience) there is limited "shelf space" and managers must determine what products go on their shelves and which customers they will allow to be served by competitors. If a customer base is better served by one brand of corn flakes or if the vendor should supply "corn flakes" from several vendors in order to accommodate personal preference.

These are decisions best made by Faithlife and then we as users can vote with our dollars if we agree with their decisions.

Ben Amundgaard (Faithlife) said:

We are going to revert the current NASB resource to its original one-verse/one-line formatting. At the same time, we will create a new paragraphed NASB resource. They will be separate resources but the new resource will be available for free to everyone who owns the original resource.

All your notes will be tied to the original NASB resource. However, with corresponding notes and highlights you’ll be able to see them in the new resource as well.

We will sell both resources as standalone products on logos.com.

Thank you Ben and Faithlife for carefully considering customer feedback and coming up with the perfect solution!  The strategy you outlined is very logical and obviously well thought out.  I am extremely excited and grateful for this decision.

Francis said:

...

I too am saddened that this could not be accomplished in a single resource. It would have been a much more elegant solution. I hope that the new paragraph resource will continue to have the One Verse Per Line VF. I also hope that if there is a major reworking of VFs in the future that this will lead to some improvements.

alabama24 said:

Randy W. Sims said:

I hope that the new paragraph resource will continue to have the One Verse Per Line VF.

Why wouldn't it? It wasn't a new feature. You can use it with any of the other bibles!

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be removed. I just wanted to make it explicit along with my hopes that it will continue to improve as time and resources allow. 

I was glad for the paragraph version. I did not like the one verse per line format at all. But, I dealt with it. And, I certainly did not understand the uproar this issue has caused. But, I learned something... I never thought the format was a purchasing decision. In my case, I purchased the NASB not for the format, but for the translation - the more literal translation.

I am concerned about losing my notes in the reversion... But, I am sure I will make do again.