Can some Accordance users help me?

I do not own Accordance and cannot justify adding it to my budget. However, I am very interested in comparing features between software as a prod to see how to improve the software I do own. People keep mentioning things they like about Accordance in general terms "better tagging of commentaries", "searches not possible in Logos". ... Would some of you please give me concrete examples of what is tagged in Accordance commentaries that is not tagged in Logos or what searches are possible in Accordance that are not possible in Logos. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

John Fidel

MJ,

I think the specific reference you are referring to are the SIL Exegetical Summaries. Accordance tagged the bible and lexicon references so they open to the resource, if you have that resource it in your library. They tagged BAGD to BDAG which can be very useful.

The same commentaries in Logos are not tagged to open the resource, but pop up with the name of the resource. Accordance did a better job on this commentary set imo. I own it in Logos and am content. Logos put their effort in their bible guides.

There are also many Accordance resources where footnotes do not pop up the referenced resource where the Logos version does; sometimes because it is not yet available in Accordance.

I am being objective here and not sure either company appreciates that. If someone wants to praise one over the other, they are welcome to do so. No software is perfect for everyone and FL finds a way to create their own turmoil that Accordance wisely avoids.

There are searches Logos can do that Accordance cannot do due to the extensive additional tagging of some of the biblical texts and some that may be easier to do in Accordance. Both have strengths.

FL is getting beat up a bit right now due to their recent communication regarding Logos Now, so things may look greener on the other side of the wall, and actually may be for some.

Both are great software. I think Accordance does a better job of communicating with their customers and stays on task better than FL. Some customers find comfort in that.

The difficult issue for customers is that they are investing in a platform; once invested switching is not inexpensive. I have both as well as BibleWorks and am bless by them all.

Robert M. Warren

I am very interested in comparing features between software as a prod to see how to improve the software I do own.

Thanks for doing this.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958418#Comment_958418

I am being objective here and not sure either company appreciates that. If someone wants to praise one over the other, they are welcome to do so

Thank you, John for your calm objectivity reflected in your writing.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958429#Comment_958429

One I appreciate is the instant offline lookup of greek and Hebrew words on mobile.

I just press and hold on a word and this pops up. Instantly.

Note parsing and a gloss. Below it automatically loads the text of your top divtionary

you can scroll the pop up to read the whole article, or click Amplify to go to the dicti article.

note also the search button. I can search the book I’m reading for the word, lemma, root, morphological tag, or strong number. Instantly. And offline.

And thr Greek and english texts scroll perfectly in sync, when reading a text... or when displaying search results.

I cant do any of that on Logos. I can’t even search my bible!!??

Clint Cozier

MJ,

Accordance has the INFER command which compares two different texts or collection of texts looking for intertextual relationships. Nothing close to it in any other software package. If intertextuality is the question, Accordance and the INFER command is the answer. Accordance also has a SINGLE SEARCH INTERFACE (well, two interfaces if you count the command line) in which you build all kinds of searches. I thought the MORPH QUERY interface in Logos was headed that direction, but it looks destined to me to be just one among a cluttered collection of search dialogues. Once you "get" building construct searches in Accordance, then things like syntax searches open up much easier than in Logos. For my work, the Morph Query brought Logos close to Accordance when doing my bread and butter searches (mostly Greek, Hebrew every now and then), but for detail work (or things like INFER and questions of intertextuality) Accordance is my tool of choice.

On the other hand, LOGOS has perfected the art of the metatag which I've grown to love. Thing like searching for constructions within passages where Jesus is the speaker are easy in Logos, and I can't do anything like a Milestone search in Accordance. I was leary of all the metatagging when it started to appear, but I admit I've grown to depend on that set of tools now.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958442#Comment_958442

MJ, you (and the Logos team) might appreciate an insider's perspective here

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/18488-had-the-logos-guys-give-me-a-demo/#entry112839

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958442#Comment_958442

MJ,

Accordance has the INFER command which compares two different texts or collection of texts looking for intertextual relationships. Nothing close to it in any other software package. If intertextuality is the question, Accordance and the INFER command is the answer. Accordance also has a SINGLE SEARCH INTERFACE (well, two interfaces if you count the command line) in which you build all kinds of searches. I thought the MORPH QUERY interface in Logos was headed that direction, but it looks destined to me to be just one among a cluttered collection of search dialogues. Once you "get" building construct searches in Accordance, then things like syntax searches open up much easier than in Logos. For my work, the Morph Query brought Logos close to Accordance when doing my bread and butter searches (mostly Greek, Hebrew every now and then), but for detail work (or things like INFER and questions of intertextuality) Accordance is my tool of choice.

On the other hand, LOGOS has perfected the art of the metatag which I've grown to love. Thing like searching for constructions within passages where Jesus is the speaker are easy in Logos, and I can't do anything like a Milestone search in Accordance. I was leary of all the metatagging when it started to appear, but I admit I've grown to depend on that set of tools now.

What does INFER do in Accordance that INTERTEXT does not in Logos?

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958450#Comment_958450

MJ, a lot of the time people talk about Accordance being more nimble or quick. To give you an idea of what they mean, I've done a screen capture of:

#1 Accordance

#2 Logos

... doing similar functions. In both I am using the curser to hover over words in the original language, letting it light up the parallel words in the english and showing parsing information. If I was reading a text in greek, this would be something I would be doing constantly to quickly understand how the passage is working. I then triple click on a word to go to the dictionary article, then do a search, and finally demonstrate synchronous scrolling. In each of these use cases, which are 100% core tasks for me and all the Bible College students I work with - Accordance is noticeably more nimble. Actually the screen capture hid the difference slightly, making Accordance seem slower than it is - in real life the difference is more pronounced.

I'm running a MacBook Pro retina, which was the top model exactly 3 years ago. Not cutting edge but comparable or better to what many of Logos' potential customers would be using, I would expect.

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time. Their first time using Logos can feel like someone has poured honey into the computer and slowed it. right. down. with. a. slight. pause. in. every. single. task.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958418#Comment_958418

SIL Exegetical Summaries. Accordance tagged the bible and lexicon references so they open to the resource, if you have that resource it in your library.

The same tagging did exist in some Exegetical Summaries in Logos (in Joel for example, if I remember right), but after an upgrade it was removed.

I guess it was some newbie who didn't know about that good feature cleaned tagging to worse. (some far side comics come into my mind)

They tagged BAGD to BDAG which can be very useful.

This has been suggested to FL many times.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958456#Comment_958456

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time.

Question - is this true on a PC as well as a Mac? I can explain it if it is Mac only.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958489#Comment_958489

The same tagging did exist in some Exegetical Summaries in Logos (in Joel for example, if I remember right), but after an upgrade it was removed.

Was it reported as a bug? If I'd noticed it, I would have reported it with as close to choice language as a landlubber can muster.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958490#Comment_958490

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time.

Question - is this true on a PC as well as a Mac? I can explain it if it is Mac only.

I have only ever used either on a Mac, but I would say this agility difference is sufficiently widely recognised to make me guess it applies on both platforms. Any PC users want to comment? (Do people still use non-Mac computers these days?)

This video is kind of old, but suggests the difference holds on Windows. And it seems like this has been a deliberate strategy from that company for years:

"When we develop a feature, if it runs too slow for us, or seems to place a drag on the program, it is regularly optimized or retooled before it ever reaches the hands of the beta testers." (I won't link to the source of this but I'm sure you can find it)

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958491#Comment_958491

The same tagging did exist in some Exegetical Summaries in Logos (in Joel for example, if I remember right), but after an upgrade it was removed.

Was it reported as a bug? If I'd noticed it, I would have reported it with as close to choice language as a landlubber can muster.

My last comment in this thread https://community.logos.com/forums/p/148119/928192.aspx#928192 complains about it but I did not report it as a bug.

MJ. Smith

Thank you everyone. I was aware of the INFER from a text processing course. I suspect similar code was used to develop the Ancient Literature dataset. As for the others, it will take me a bit to mull things over ...

m wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958490#Comment_958490

Question - is this true on a PC as well as a Mac? I can explain it if it is Mac only.

Frankly, I don't see tremendous differences on the Windows side. For example, on Logos, a simple Hebrew morph search in BHS (VbP3M) is one the order of 0.1 sec to return over 1000 results. So hardly sluggish. Logos also does the right thing to display some reuslts practically instantly whuile it is still loading others.

I do use it on an SSD which probably helps alot. There may be folks who have lag in start up and processing that really need to consider hardware upgrades to solve the issues they are having.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958512#Comment_958512

The videos I uploaded were on an SSD.

The fact that you can see some results load while others are yet to load speaks to some lag that must be more than 0.1 second. But it’s not just the time to do the search once you have pressed the button, it is also the speed of the contextual menu that allows you to get to the point of pressing the button. Plus the general snappiness of the interface and the responsiveness of hovering over words and corresponding words being lit up.

The good news for Logos is that if they can get on top of this they will have destroyed 1 of Accordance’s 3 competitive advantages, potentially their biggest one. (The other two are certain advanced searches [im told], and the offline use of mobile apps documentled in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

m wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958517#Comment_958517

The fact that you can see some results load while others are yet to load speaks to some lag that must be more than 0.1 second. But it’s not just the time to do the search once you have pressed the button, it is also the speed of the contextual menu that allows you to get to the point of pressing the button. Plus the general snappiness of the interface and the responsiveness of hovering over words and corresponding words being lit up.

Yes, you are right. I generally use Logos for secondary source work, so it really doesn't impact me.

Fo original text, I must say that I still prefer BW over Accordance or Logos, as it is very focused and very fast.

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958453#Comment_958453

Justin,

INTERTEXT simply is another metatag search, Logos looking up reference tags that have been embedded in a text. INFER on the other hand is a "cluster" search that looks for a defined number of lemma or surface form matches permitting intervening non-matching worlds (if desired) between any two bodies of texts using similar tagging. INFER has an incredible amount of granularity built in; I can decide whether I'm searching for a string of 5 words in a specific order, or a cluster of 6 lemmas allowing for one intervening non-matching lemma in any particular order. Any decent software package will give the obvious hits, but used properly INFER goes way beyond.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958531#Comment_958531

Clint, I read a blog in INFER and was under the impression that it was just a different approach to tagged texts as opposed to an algorithm that can work with any original language resource that is encoded with lemma and inflection identification. For instance, it seemed that it ran mostly between Bible and other (select) resources but I read nothing about comparing two other original language resources (for instance, two Greek biographies of Plutarch). Would you elaborate on whether I misread that or not? Still trying to understand in what ways it differs from what can be done in Logos (taking the point that it offers some interesting "granulatity").

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958531#Comment_958531

How quick a query runs might not be the only criteria to define the "snappiness" of Accordance. Logos on the Mac (and I go back to the original Mac release) has a cycle: it is snappy at the version release, then it gets slower and slower (with more and more forum questions about how to speed it up), then speed gets prioritized in the Logos TODO list and speed is good for a while. The state of the client on the Mac has been for me a week to week experience. Accordance (my experience is strictly with the Mac here) is consistent release after release after release. The load times on the Mac (late 2015, 10.13, 8 gig RAM w/ SSD) for similar workspaces (ESV, NA28 and BDAG) tell another story: 9 seconds until I can work in Accordance vs. 29 seconds for a very similar configuration in Logos. Tools also exist for me to work with Accordance (copy texts, look them up and display) from Alfred. The "snappiness" (or the laggy feeling I have when the Logos Mac client is at the low point in its cycle) is the sum of all these things.

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958532#Comment_958532

Francis,

The texts being queried need to have similar (identical?) morphological tagging. For example, if Logos had a similar command, then it could be used to search for intertexts between any two works (or subsets thereof) from the tagged Perseus collection (boy do I wish!). If the two biographies of Plutarch had identical morphological tagging, they could in theory be searched for intertexts.

The difference (it seems to me) is that Logos simply searches for metatags in the text which contain the intertextual references whereas Accordance searches for the references themselves using morphological tags. Each has its advantages in particular applications.

Randy W. Sims

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958538#Comment_958538

I have no experience with INFER, but my impression is that it is basically a specialization of Accordance's FUZZY search. An algorithmic search for phrases that are similar.

http://www.accordancefiles2.com/podcasts/p89_INFER_and_Search_Back.m4v

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958538#Comment_958538

Bibleworks (for the last several versions) has a very similar Phrase Matching tool that is somewhat less configurable but similarily is searching for a definable cluster of lemmas (or lemata).

Randy W. Sims

I started using Accordance out of curiosity when it was being ported to Windows. It quickly became my go-to for Mobile because it works offline. That is what led to my picking up one of their larger libraries and other resources. I always turn to accordance for mobile because it works.

Accordance desktop:

Has a pretty good Fuzzy search, which I think is closely related to the mentioned INFER command.
Is generally very snappy as mentioned. There usually is little lag in activating context menus and such.
Has unchallenged Maps. Not the prettiest. Not the best UI. But they do everything you could want. Layer on top of layer. Define exactly what elements you want to show/hide. Add your own elements. FL is working on new maps, but my impressions from what they've said is that they still have no clue how to do this right.
Is very customizable. Pages and pages of options to make it look and act the way you want. I wish Logos had a fraction of that customizability.
Is slightly more sane when spawning new tabs in a sensible location.

This is a list of things where Accordance has some advantage. Not a two-way comparison. If it were, Logos would probably have a longer list and is still my favored platform.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958456#Comment_958456

MJ, a lot of the time people talk about Accordance being more nimble or quick. To give you an idea of what they mean, I've done a screen capture of:

#1 Accordance

#2 Logos

... doing similar functions. In both I am using the curser to hover over words in the original language, letting it light up the parallel words in the english and showing parsing information. If I was reading a text in greek, this would be something I would be doing constantly to quickly understand how the passage is working. I then triple click on a word to go to the dictionary article, then do a search, and finally demonstrate synchronous scrolling. In each of these use cases, which are 100% core tasks for me and all the Bible College students I work with - Accordance is noticeably more nimble. Actually the screen capture hid the difference slightly, making Accordance seem slower than it is - in real life the difference is more pronounced.

I'm running a MacBook Pro retina, which was the top model exactly 3 years ago. Not cutting edge but comparable or better to what many of Logos' potential customers would be using, I would expect.

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time. Their first time using Logos can feel like someone has poured honey into the computer and slowed it. right. down. with. a. slight. pause. in. every. single. task.

Logos really does not to "speed it up", the side by side comparison really brings out what all of us already know about the speed issues.

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958545#Comment_958545

As is my routine, I have had both running this morning during my devotional and study time. Here are some of my perceived strengths as I switch back and forth...

Logos -

The guides, factbook and explorer are awesome for pulling nuggets out of my library and highlighting them to me.
Tagging with speakers and the discourse stuff is very useful.
Lectionaries, prayer lists and reading plans are excellent for daily spiritual rhythms.
Extensive library options for research, Catholic, denominational, journals, etc. focuses and if I buy a popular Christian ebook, it is integrated. I 'read' more on Logos than Accordance by far.
Very approachable... key in a scripture reference or topic and click go! It is also very easy to ramble and explore in my big library.

Accordance -

The program focuses you on the Biblical text - at least for me it seems to cut through the clutter and focus, so I 'study' more.
Extremely fast and the UI is very customisable - I think in all the years I have run it, it has crashed once or twice.
The atlas is and has always been a leader - the graphics packages are outstanding and tightly integrated.
The library options are fewer, but there is no fluff, it is all high quality and categorised into a structured library window - less is sometimes more. Plus some things you can't get anywhere else (i.e. Carta, Biblical Archaeology Review) When you purchase on Accordance you tend to focus on what you need and why, then thoroughly learn to use it to the fullest.
You have to push yourself to learn to use it (the Dr. J videos are excellent), but if you do, you really develop an understanding of how to use the software to interact with the text.

I like both. If I could get them all rolled into one platform it would be awesome, but they are two different tools and approaches.

DMB

I do not own Accordance and cannot justify adding it to my budget. However, I am very interested in comparing features between software as a prod to see how to improve the software I do own. People keep mentioning things they like about Accordance in general terms "better tagging of commentaries", "searches not possible in Logos". ... Would some of you please give me concrete examples of what is tagged in Accordance commentaries that is not tagged in Logos or what searches are possible in Accordance that are not possible in Logos. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

I can only surmise from this and your other thread, where you're trying to go. I have two features in my software I like, that sound similar?

- Logical tagging. I can take a text source (web, text, PDF, etc), search for text strings (typically headers), parse the find-location and assign the parsed tag. If Logos, that'd be useful in Word or Hermineia.

- Reverse tagging. Again, in a text source, either manual, or search, essentially create Bible footnotes in my Bibles. In theory, it's a note from one source automatically assigned to another. It also works against my subject database (sort of high-speed clipping).

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958569#Comment_958569

I own Accordance and use it interchangeably with Logos. I even crossgraded some of my Logos resources to Accordance when I needed to fit them into my Accordance workflow (and I plan to crossgrade more resources into Accordance over time).

Here are some of the benefits of Accordance over Logos:

1. Way faster at searching. I've ran Accordance and Logos on PC, Mac, hard drive, flash drive, etc. You're never going to beat Accordance at sheer speed on searching. When I need to quickly open a Bible program and run a quick search, it's always Accordance, not Logos, where I turn. I can run searches in Accordance in the amount of time it takes Logos to startup.

2. Accordance's search analytics are very powerful and user-friendly to work with. I can perform similar results in Logos, but it's far more complicated. Accordance offers a range of search analytics that are a click away when running a search.

3. Accordance does offer powerful search commands such as the INFER command (which I need to use more often), plus their search interface is far easier to learn how to use over the complex command line in Logos. I plan to drop back in on a few Accordance webinars to brush up on some of the various search commands in Accordance. My only "issue" is I've mastered the complicated command line for Logos searches, I need to mentally "re-train" myself to embrace the simplicity that unlocks the power of Accordance searches. Similar to when I moved from Windows to a Mac, I needed to mentally "re-train" myself to embrace the simplicity of a Mac. If I really ever spent quality time in Accordance searching, I'd probably get to a point where I'd cringe every time I ran a Logos search. The "Amplify" feature is a powerful feature yet a breeze to use as well.

4. I prefer Accordance's "Instant Details" pane over how Logos handles the same content in tooltips or the Information Panel. It's far cleaner to work with from a user experience perspective.

5. Creating User Tools in Accordance is overall simpler than trying to create Personal Books in Logos, although Logos offers more extensive tagging of Personal Books (although I've moved away from storing too many user files inside Bible software and consolidating everything under Nota Bene).

6. Overall I've found biblical language texts to be better quality in Accordance in terms of searching, breathing marks in Greek, etc. When I need to perform biblical language searches, I tend to run those in Accordance. Their graphical construct feature is far simpler to use than the equivalent in Logos. Their syntax modules are also simpler to understand, although I've mastered the Logos syntax modules and now need to try my attempt at running those searching in Accordance. Accordance also offers pre-made diagrams of the Greek NT which are helpful too.

7. I find the overall layout of BDAG/HALOT more user friendly in Accordance than Logos. I've tried to use both in Logos, but I find myself going back to Accordance to use them every time.

8. Accordance is un-matched on visual tools. Their atlas is far superior to the Logos atlas and the atlas I turn to when teaching and studying. I've used the Logos timeline more since I'm more familar with it, but the Accordance timeline has been around longer, so I may transtion to using it more in my studies. Accordance also offers high-res images of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and their PhotoGuide and PhotoMuseum are un-matched. I use them extensively in studying and teaching, plus I can waste way too much time in them if I'm not careful since they're too fun! They've also rollled out audio Bible for Hebrew and Greek.

9. Some content that's not available in Logos, such as the Thompson Chain Reference Bible which I enjoy using.

10. Last time I taught a video series, I noticed I spent the bulk of my on-screen time in Accordance versus Logos. While I did much of my study preparation in Logos, Accordance has an overall simpler, cleaner, less bloated interface that looks and functions way better on video over Logos. The Bible text was always simple, and I could effortlessly move around the interface to display what I needed to. It's a far better tool for teaching and presenting Bible software live in a classroom or video environment.

Those are the technical benefits. Here are some additional benefits:

1. Upgrading between versions is a far less complicated process over Logos. When I "took the plunge" with Accordance, I did it on Accordance 10 with the Essential Collection. Upgrading to Accordance 11 Essential ran be about $75. Accordance 12 changed the collection structure to more specialized collections, so I originally purchased the engine upgrade and the PhotoGuide and PhotoMuseum upgrades which ran me a little over $100. I later went for Triple Learner since I needed those tools for school which ran me in the $80 range. I later went for Triple Discoverer which ran me about $150. I may later upgrade to Greek Pro and Graphics Expert. With Logos, Logos 4 cost me $400+ to go from Gold to Platinum, $500+ to upgrade to L5 Platinum, $600+ to upgrade to L6 Platinum, and $700+ to upgrade to L7 Platinum even with Logos Now and academic discounts. Accordance has been way more cost effective at upgrades and far simpler to decide how I need to upgrade, as well as no subscription hassles or drama.

2. Customer service is far superior on Accordance versus Logos. I had a major issue with Logos and needed urgent help. When I called in to customer service, the rep gave me a half-baked answer, incorrect information and information which actually worsened my issue, and tried to rush me off the phone so he could message other customers on Faithlife. And I've spent five figures in sales with Logos (more than I have on a car) plus had an active Logos Now, Logos Cloud, and payment plan with the company. Only when I let loose on the forums and emailed Bob did a higher up rep jump in and assist, although I still had to go through an ordeal to get Logos functioning again at a time when I needed it the most. With Accordance, I had a somewhat-major issue happen. I called into support, and the rep tirelessly worked with me for over an hour to assist with the issue and even called me back after the office closed. Turns out the issue wasn't even with Accordance but my ISP releasing a security update which blocked access to their server by accident. The rep even emailed me the next day to ensure my issues were answered. I've spent far less with Accordance than Logos (although enough), yet their support rep treated me as though I had spent six or seven figures with them. That's customer service.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958774#Comment_958774

7. I find the overall layout of BDAG/HALOT more user friendly in Accordance than Logos. I've tried to use both in Logos, but I find myself going back to Accordance to use them every time.

Can't agree with this. I agree with lots (edit: very little) of what you've said, but not this. BDAG and HALOT in Logos are WAY more user friendly. Have you turned on outline formatting? It makes the massive blocks of impenetrable text in BDAG/HALOT quick and easy to navigate. Love it. One of the best features.

EDIT: reading your post again, I disagree with a lot of it! To go point by point:

Agree, although if you are opening a program each time you are doing it wrong. Try minimise. Still a noticeable speed difference, but no where near as big as you make out. And I'm the biggest advocate of Logos implementing speed improvements!
Partially agree, but once I watched the Logos quick start videos and had a play, I find it just as easy to search on both.
Disagree based on my use case. There might be some academics who have particular search needs, but I have not run across a search that I've wanted to do that I can't do in Logos.
Strongly disagree. Accordance Instant Details is quick but it is ugly and a big consumer of screen real estate. The fact that you compare It may be a matter of user preference, but I find that the way the parsing and quotes etc appear in Logos in a pop-over box is far superior. The parsing information that appears as I hover over words is lightening fast - just as fast as Accordance. But it doesn't take up any space on the screen when I'm not looking at it. The info pane on Logos can be a bit sluggish but it's trying to do a different thing. Would love it if it was quicker though. And would love the ability to increase the font size of tooltips. But even with all of that, I find that the Logos implementation of this looks nicer, leaves more screen available for reading, and does the same job.
Not something I use, can't comment.
Disagree. Same answer as point 3
Strongly disagree (see above)
Strongly agree re atlas (though note that Logos TODAY rolled out some improvements to this. If they keep developing (e.g. ability to use offline) this gap may close. But disagree when it comes to other media, I find it easier to find media in Logos. Logos has a dedicated media search engine that, in my experience, is easier to use than Accordance's.
This one goes both ways. Accordance doesn't sell Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, for example. Great resource.
Can't comment

Additional benefits:

Accordance is cheaper to keep up to date, but this is because they introduce fewer new features. Compare Accordance 10 to Accordance 12, and the differences are pretty minimal. Compare Logos 5 to Logos 7 and the differences are enormous. Cosmetically, not so much, but in practice. Logos sets a blistering pace for development and innovation. I have elsewhere critiqued this slightly, suggesting they should perhaps introduce less new things and instead focus on delivering the right things and continual refinements of their core functions. But then again, numerous of these features (such as propositional outlines and discourse visual filters) are tremendously helpful. At the end of the day, neither software really demands that you upgrade. If you want more new features, in Logos you can pay to have them. Or you can choose not to. Accordance... you just have to wait a lot longer.
I've found both to be responsive.

I've written elsewhere about why I prefer Logos.

What a privilege to live in an era when there are not just one, but multiple, incredible Bible Software programs available.

martin lohstroh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958774#Comment_958774

Wow then why are you even here ?

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958776#Comment_958776

Have you turned on outline formatting? It makes the massive blocks of impenetrable text in BDAG/HALOT quick and easy to navigate.

Thanks for that tip, Andrew!

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958554#Comment_958554

I like both. If I could get them all rolled into one platform it would be awesome, but they are two different tools and approaches.

Do you mean some sort of software shell that can use both tools seamlessly combined?

Just dreaming about the future: a user-friendly user-definable graphic user interface which uses Logos, A, BW, OT, WS, Kindle, Internet, pdf, Word etc. With fluff filter, unorthodoxy attenuation and heresy rejection. Opens the Bible reference of the version indicated in the resource. Easily definable priorities for different resource types, and foolproof search. Hiding unnecessary resources and features. Excellent graphics and maps and user-definable fonts and background.

It may require quite a lot of work to make one. Well, we are not in the paradise yet.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958776#Comment_958776

Francis,

The texts being queried need to have similar (identical?) morphological tagging. For example, if Logos had a similar command, then it could be used to search for intertexts between any two works (or subsets thereof) from the tagged Perseus collection (boy do I wish!). If the two biographies of Plutarch had identical morphological tagging, they could in theory be searched for intertexts.

The difference (it seems to me) is that Logos simply searches for metatags in the text which contain the intertextual references whereas Accordance searches for the references themselves using morphological tags. Each has its advantages in particular applications.

This is potentially very good provided that Accordance develops a large array of texts that can be used in this way. Logos provides many of the Loeb volumes while others are still in production or CP. These texts are tagged. What you say about Perseus suggests that Accordance does not have tagged Graeco-Roman literature (or at least not Plutarch). If the company does not give access to the large array of ancient texts that the feature would be useful with, then in effects it is closer to what can be done in Logos with Inter-text than its potential would otherwise suggest. I find that the future of research is precisely in powerfully encoding primary sources. Too much development money goes into encoding and providing popular works that are of ephemeral value.

reading your post again, I disagree with a lot of it!

This illustrates that comparison must be very specific. "I find searching easier" could very well reflect user preference or better ability to grasp and relate to one approach that others relate not as well to. I am not contesting any of what has been written because I do not use accordance. But it just struck me that a lot of commendations leave ample room for disagreement. So, for the sake of helping others understand how the softwares compare, it seems best to give very concrete examples.

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958788#Comment_958788

I'd like to throw in a few additional thoughts here.

First of all, as I said before, I use both Logos and Accordance (as well as WORDsearch) in my Bible study workflow (the only program I'm not using yet is BIbleWorks since I haven't been given a solid reason on why I need to add it to my Bible study toolbox at the moment). I've also invested more money overall in Logos than Accordance and have used Logos for far many years over Accordance (I got into Accordance far later when I realized my Greek and Hebrew professors were using only Accordance and I wanted to work on the same platform as them during my Greek and Hebrew classes). So my critiques are from someone who ran exclusively on Logos for years and only been using Accordance regularly for a few years.

In terms of running programs, I tend to quit many of my programs when I'm not extensively running them (regardless if it's Logos, Accordance, Safari, a word processor, etc.). The need to do so is probably less now that I have a new iMac Pro, but I don't keep everything running in the background just for the sake of it. Logos launches way faster on my iMac Pro versus my old iMac, but Accordance is still faster. One issue could be the Logos homepage (disabling it might help).

In terms of searching, I've masted the Logos search commands, so I'm personally proficient in them. However, if I were showing people how to search in a Bible software program, it'd be easier to do so in Accordance versus Logos. Accordance's search interface is overall simpler than Logos, even though I've climbed and conquered the mountain of Logos searching.

In terms of Accordance Instant Details, there is a way to keep it hidden and allow instant details to appear in a popover when clicking and holding on a word. My goal was to originally keep the Instant Details window hidden and just use the popovers. However, I got to a point where I was using it enough to keep it open all the time. Additionally, on both of my iMacs (and even when I worked off a MacBook Pro or Surface Book), my Instant Details pane doesn't use a ton of screen real estate. The Logos Information Panel uses more screen real estate overall. I've also noticed the delay of getting data when the Logos Information Panel loads as well (it's never bothered me, but I have noticed it). The tooltips of data in Logos are of a small font, especially on higher-res monitors. When teaching, the Logos tooltips fonts are too small for my students to see them, and the Logos Information Panel is too large to comfortably place in a position where it doesn't feel intrusive. The Accordance Instant Details Pane is small enough where it's not eating into my entire workspace but displays the content in a comfortable enough font where I can be working in a text and easily show students the related information.

In terms of BDAG/HALOT, how I have Accordance is set when I amplify to them from a text, it also searches the reference along with the lemma form and highlights the reference instantly. This allows me to instantly zero in on the section of the resource I need. I haven't found a way to entirely duplicate this in Logos (I've gotten somewhat close, although I'm still doing some additional scrolling and reading to find what I need). My professors taught me how to use BDAG/HALOT in Accordance (neither one use Logos), so for those who haven't gone through the training, the outline mode in Logos might be easier for them. Since I had two Accordance using professors teach me how to quickly work through BDAG and HALOT in Accordance, I've gotten down a workflow that's quicker than Logos for these tasks.

I will look into the improvements on the Atlas, although I do use features such as the 3D Atlas, as well as some of the custom layers features. These I can't perform in Logos (plus the reliance on the Internet has made the atlas overall laggier than Accordance. Offline atlas would be nice). Logos had a standalone Atlas program years ago that I think did all of this, but alas, it was also discontinued years ago.

In terms of media, the L7 Media tool has helped, and I've been using Visual Copy every week since L6 to put together Scripture artwork (although I've been having issues with it in a few recent builds of Logos, so I've been running some tests in YouVersion as a backup in case Visual Copy continues to struggle). The PhotoGuide in Accordance is still where I turn when I need images of the Holy Land. The articles that are included give me a good overview of each biblical site, and the images I need are all a click away and have a user-friendly layout, especially when teaching and I need to walk people through various biblical sites virtually. I had an older version of Glo Bible and may upgrade to the new version, as I haven't found any program that offers its range of virtual tours, etc.

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958982#Comment_958982

@Nathan and other Accordance/Logos users:

If you have a lot of commentaries and resources in Logos, do you duplicate the same resource at Accordance? Do you buy resources based on pricing and keep different sets of commentaries/ resources in each program? Or do you stop buying from one and switch completely to the other companies? Anyone using Accordance + Logos + Olivetree? It seems like OliveTree has the cheapest pricing from the three companies: For example, NICOT/NT is $1350 at OliveTree, $1448 at Accordance, but $1865 at Logos today (these are regular prices for 2/2018). Although I have tried to buy all my commentaries in Logos, "just to keep everything in one place." More and more I wonder whether this is wise.

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958985#Comment_958985

Hey Paul, sometimes the overlap is inevitable in some cases. That is because the base packages in Logos and Accordance can have similar resources.

If I have one set in one software program I won't buy it in the other program unless it is part of a base package type of deal where it is really cheap. For example I have NICOT/NT from Accordance, I don't have any plan to get it in Logos. The same goes for Understanding the Bible Set. I have sets in Logos that I won't buy in Accordance.

I go for the best prices and sales. I use both programs in conjunction with one another and I don't see why that has to be such a bad thing, there are benefits to having both.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958982#Comment_958982

The need to do so is probably less now that I have a new iMac Pro,

Yes. While I've advocated elsewhere for Logos improving its start up speed, it sounds like here you are exacerbating the problem by your habits. There are a few programs I keep running: my task manager, calendar, evernote, and bible software.

The Logos Information Panel uses more screen real estate overall. I've also noticed the delay of getting data when the Logos Information Panel loads as well

Yes, especially when not working offline. Something Logos should seek to improve. But the appropriate comparison is with the tooltips.

The tooltips of data in Logos are of a small font, especially on higher-res monitors. When teaching, the Logos tooltips fonts are too small for my students to see them, and the Logos Information Panel is too large to comfortably place in a position where it doesn't feel intrusive. The Accordance Instant Details Pane is small enough where it's not eating into my entire workspace but displays the content in a comfortable enough font where I can be working in a text and easily show students the related information.

This is a very valid point, and something Logos should heed. In this era of bigger displays, we need the ability to adjust the size of the tooltip font.

In terms of BDAG/HALOT, how I have Accordance is set when I amplify to them from a text, it also searches the reference along with the lemma form and highlights the reference instantly.

Logos can do this identically.

Go to Visual Filters menu on BDAG/HALOT and choose emphasise active references.

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958985#Comment_958985

Although I have tried to buy all my commentaries in Logos, "just to keep everything in one place." More and more I wonder whether this is wise.

I initially started by buying things in both programs. But more and more I found it frustrating having to navigate in 2 programs, and lost the functionality of active hyperlinks between resources. In the end I sold all of my resources in a competitor and bought them in Logos.

Joseph Sollenberger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958985#Comment_958985

If you have a lot of commentaries and resources in Logos, do you duplicate the same resource at Accordance? Do you buy resources based on pricing and keep different sets of commentaries/ resources in each program? Or do you stop buying from one and switch completely to the other companies?

Paul, your operating system experience may have much to do with how comfortable it is to work with multiple tools. In the early 1990's I worked with Sun workstations and the Solaris operating system which allowed rapid switching among multiple desktops. This is still easily done on the Mac systems, and I typically have five desktops dedicated to different functions so that I will have Logos, Accordance, word processing, web tools, and such all live with the ability to copy and paste among them. I notice that the current version of Windows will also work in this way.

I have only purchased one resource common to both Logos and Accordance, the WBC when it was heavily discounted recently. Both platforms have things I like and things I wish the other had. I suspect much of the comfort with a particular tool is not unlike those who prefer a command line approach vs. a graphical user interface approach—both ways will do the job, but one will be more intuitive and comfortable than another. Once a way of doing things is mastered, it is very uncomfortable to switch to another tool style. The new tool may offer advantages, but the cost of efficiency loss and aggravation during the period of mastering the new tool is high and truly may not be worth the change. These issues have much to to with learning styles and personality profiles.

Your innate comfort level with multitasking among divergent operations will really control your success in working with multiple Bible software platforms.

It is much akin to automobiles. Do you prefer Ford or Chevy or would you like both? After all, both will transport you from home to work and back.

Shalom,

Joseph

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959023#Comment_959023

Your innate comfort level with multitasking among divergent operations will really control your success in working with multiple Bible software platforms.

It is much akin to automobiles. Do you prefer Ford or Chevy or would you like both? After all, both will transport you from home to work and back.

Shalom,

Joseph

Correctomento. I keep 3 Bible software open, until a periodic reboot. Whichever one can deliver quickest in the format I want.

As to which would I recommend to someone new, it'd depend on the person, not the software. Are they a real pastor, or desk-jockey? Is money tight? OL that important? Are they going to trying to use it in a group (several users)? And so on.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959036#Comment_959036

Correctomento

I believe you meant "Correctamundo." [:)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959093#Comment_959093

Correctomento

I believe you meant "Correctamundo."

I really need to brush up on my pseudo-spanish. The apostle Paul was far more talented in greek word creationing.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959098#Comment_959098

I really need to brush up on my pseudo-spanish.

That's not pseudo-spanish. That's Fonzarelli.

-Donnie

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958985#Comment_958985

Originally my goal was to have all my content in Logos if possible. I even wouldn't heavily use resources I couldn't get in Logos (such as web-based resources). Now that I've moved to Nota Bene for my academic word processor and store all my citations in Ibidem, I've broadened my sources since I consolidate all my research in Nota Bene now.

In terms of Logos vs Accordance, I used to only crossgrade a handful of resources to Accordance (they have a crossgrade program which allows for discounts) if I felt I needed it on a regular basis in my Accordance workflow instead of bouncing between Logos and Accordance. I only crossgraded a couple commentaries to Accordance and always did the bulk of my commentary pricing in Logos. Overall, I'll probably still mainly crossgrade the resources I use on a regular basis to Accordance, although I have a little more of an incentive Now to crossgrade more resources in Accordance than try to run everything under Logos.

In terms of Olive Tree, I had a small library with them, but Olive Tree allowed me to donate my account to a student, and I ended up phasing it out in terms of simplicity. Right now I use Logos+Accordance+WORDsearch, and I may add YouVersion or Glo Bible into my workflow.

In terms of program speed, during research projects, I tend to keep all three programs open. I only close them when I'm not actively using them since I also have a secular job and have to run other non-biblical tools when I'm not knee-deep in biblical research. I should probably just keep everything open and leverage macOS virtual desktops instead and put my Bible stuff in a desktop and my work stuff in another desktop. On my older iMac, it would have been more painful to do so. On my iMac Pro, I have plenty of room to breathe.

In terms of the Information Panel, the delay doesn't really bother me. It's more the overall size/placement of it. I haven't found a way to comfortably display it yet when teaching like I can with the Accordance Instant Details pane. I've tried both when teaching and Accordance just performs better in a teaching environment. I've tended to heavily do my research in Logos then do my teaching in Accordance.

In terms of the tooltip font, this may be doable in Windows. I remember back on Windows when I worked in a weather program I had to stream live on air, its tooltip fonts were tiny and hard to read. I was able to go in and bump up the tooltip font and change the color of tooltips to make them easier to read. Not sure if this can be done directly on macOS or how it'd work with Logos. I agree it's a feature Logos should look at adding. It's one major reason I've been using Accordance over Logos in teaching.

In terms of BDAG/HALOT, I thought Logos somehow implemented this feature. Thanks for sharing that. I'll check it out.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959111#Comment_959111

That's not pseudo-spanish. That's Fonzarelli.

Give that man an "Ayyy!"

David Bailey

With Accordance, when I install a resource, I'm done. No indexing, which is a big win! [Y]

Cromwell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/958989#Comment_958989

Go to Visual Filters menu on BDAG/HALOT and choose emphasise active references.

This one tip has made a massive difference to my study. Thanks!

Andrew - do you have any more top tips to share?

Reuben Helmuth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959271#Comment_959271

In terms of the Information Panel, the delay doesn't really bother me. It's more the overall size/placement of it. I haven't found a way to comfortably display it yet when teaching like I can with the Accordance Instant Details pane.

I'm don't understand what you're saying....! Is there something that can't be done in terms of placement/size?

Tiny and in the corner:

Using up half the screen:

In the middle:

In a floating window:

Is there some other configuration that's important to you?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959769#Comment_959769

Can't speak for Nathan, but 'popup' isn't in the Logos series. It was in Libby. It means I have to keep the Logos windows smaller than the available screen to allow info and highlighting panels. But users probably vary in prefs.

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/959786#Comment_959786

What I'm looking for is a way to get the Information Panel horizontally at the bottom of the screen in a way where it doesn't take up too much screen real estate (similar to Accordance's Instant Details pane).