Reproducible Bug: Logos mangles a valid INTERSECTS search

Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
This post has 5 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 13428
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Feb 27 2019 7:49 AM

I was looking to play with a recent search by Fred, but Logos completely misinterpreted my valid search:

(lemma:γυνή INTERSECTS <Sense wife>) AFTER 1 WORD @R 

Logos interprets this as:

(lemma:γυνή INTERSECTS <Sense ~ wife>) AND "AFTER" AND @R

When I replace INTERSECTS with ANDEQUALS, Logos interprets the search correctly.

This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!

Posts 4768
RIP
Fred Chapman | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2019 8:05 AM

Hey Mark,

I see your point on INTERSECTS vs ANDEQUALS

Your ANDEQUALS search returns better results than the one I suggested. Yours removes a couple of garbage results that mine included. One thing that threw me was why yours was capturing so many more results, then I realized you were searching All Passages rather than just the Pauline Epistles.

Posts 3056
LogosEmployee
Andrew Batishko | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2019 9:11 AM

Mark Barnes:

Logos completely misinterpreted my valid search:

(lemma:γυνή INTERSECTS <Sense wife>) AFTER 1 WORD @R 

Logos interprets this as:

(lemma:γυνή INTERSECTS <Sense ~ wife>) AND "AFTER" AND @R

Generally the search engine doesn't support most operators as operands of a proximity operator. This is the same issue as mentioned here where the comma operator works but not the OR operator: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/4896.aspx

That said, in the same way that there is an exception for the comma operator, we should be able to make exceptions for the INTERSECTS and WITHIN operators. I've created a case to fix this.

Andrew Batishko | Faithlife software developer

Posts 5971
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 28 2019 6:02 PM

Andrew Batishko (Faithlife):
That said, in the same way that there is an exception for the comma operator, we should be able to make exceptions for the INTERSECTS and WITHIN operators. I've created a case to fix this.

What about NEAR?

Please use descriptive thread titles to attract helpful posts & save others time. Thanks!

Posts 3056
LogosEmployee
Andrew Batishko | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 1 2019 8:55 AM

SineNomine:
What about NEAR?

Unfortunately, no. The difference is that the result of the INTERSECTS and WITHIN operators is a single matching term, while NEAR results in 2 matching terms. This prevents it from being able to be combined with the other proximity operators.

Andrew Batishko | Faithlife software developer

Posts 5971
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 1 2019 5:33 PM

Andrew Batishko (Faithlife):
SineNomine:
What about NEAR?
Unfortunately, no. The difference is that the result of the INTERSECTS and WITHIN operators is a single matching term, while NEAR results in 2 matching terms. This prevents it from being able to be combined with the other proximity operators.

OK.

Please use descriptive thread titles to attract helpful posts & save others time. Thanks!

Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS