- How do I stop Logos from assuming I typed 'it' wrong?
Eg, looking for the Old English word, "Wyrd", it would be nice were the Factbook to at least prioritize any wyrd hits before it got to "Byard Bennett", "word", war, swords, et al.
And beyond its mistyped/fuzzy hits, Factbook doesn't know about the wyrd dictionary and Beowulf results I find otherwise, nor 'my document' references.
(I understand that 'fuzzy' searching would stray; are Factbook results more/less 'hardcoded'?)
G:Eg, looking for the Old English word, "Wyrd", it would be nice were the Factbook to at least prioritize any wyrd hits before it got to "Byard Bennett", "word", war, swords, et al.
I don't see any "wyrd" hits at all.
Have you pre-ordered A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament yet?
Thank you, Sine,
That is correct for the Factbook as far as I browsed its results.
However, hits are possible, in the Britannica article re Beowulf, forgivably in a few Semitic language transliterations, and amusingly enough, in dictionary etymological explications of the English word "weird".
Still, given my somewhat Herodotean proclivities, it would be nice were Factbook flexible enough to pull books off my Logos shelf for which it has perhaps not been hardcoded. (Bubbles need to be pricked.)
The Factbook is by design more like Wikipedia than Google. The Search function in Logos/Verbum is more like Google.
G:- How do I stop Logos from assuming I typed 'it' wrong?
Methinks ye (sorry no thorn on my keyboard ).... the problem is not with Logos but with an incorrect assumption. Logos is not trying to match what you type to all text it is trying to match it to the headwords it knows - headwords being the term used by Logos for the title on a dictionary or encyclopedia type entry. A Basic Search on all text is where one would look for "wyrd":
This is the list I am offered. Selecting wyrd yields appropriate results
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
MJ. Smith:Logos is not trying to match what you type to all text
Correct.
MJ. Smith:it is trying to match it to the headwords it knows - headwords being the term used by Logos for the title on a dictionary or encyclopedia type entry
Factbook doesn't deal with headwords at all. But, the idea is basically correct. Factbook is completing against a list of the titles of various terms that Fatihlife has tagged in all its resources. In technical terms, it's primarily centered around data type references, with the one exception in that resources are also included. These tagged terms come from a large variety of different datasets (which contain the tagging information).
Andrew Batishko | Faithlife software developer
Yes, thanks MJ, that is what I meant to say with
"it would be nice were Factbook flexible enough to pull books off my Logos shelf for which it has perhaps not been hardcoded". (Metaphors can be sooo vague )
Sine, it was indeed SEARCH results similar to MJ's image (not Factbook's) that produced the sample of resources I gave that did contain wyrd.
Still, as desirous as I am of getting my typing right, t'would be nice were Factbook to not ad lib with results from its programmed list; I can understand at some level FactBook's finding 'word' for 'wyrd', but 'Byard' and 'swords' (I am glad that FB does show me what it thinks is the hit so I don't have to open the resources to review the contents.)
Thank you both for your attention: I appreciated it and look forward to it in the future.
g
PS: Andrew, thanks too. (Your response to MJ came in as I was typing.)
Then, thinking of the FB returns, because they are TAGGED based (and the list is resource level?), do I need to open each (here, 349 entries) to ensure that the resource is not of use?
It would seem if so then, that FB does 'help out' by correcting my typing. (Or by trying to find alternative spellings.)
Factbook is based on the Unified Annotation Vocabulary dataset, which contains a few hundred thousand entries of a variety of different types from events to people to books to topics to lemmas and more. When you type in the box, the application does its best to find a list of the entries that is close to what you have typed in the hopes that one of them contains the content you are looking for. In a way, you could think of it like Wikipedia, which doesn't have a page for every possible topic that you could find on the internet by searching with Google.
G: Then, thinking of the FB returns, because they are TAGGED based (and the list is resource level?), do I need to open each (here, 349 entries) to ensure that the resource is not of use?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are asking here. Are you asking about the results in the Search panel? Or about Factbook, and if so, what are the 349 entries you are referring to?
G:I can understand at some level FactBook's finding 'word' for 'wyrd', but 'Byard' and 'swords'
Factbook shows the result(s) closest to what you typed.
I find that sometimes Factbook misses results that I would have preferred it picked up (e.g., different spellings of someone's not-originally-in-English name, for instance), so I don't want Factbook to be made pickier than it already is as to what it returns.
What I think would be a problem is if Factbook did have an entry for "Wyrd" and typing in "wyrd" brought up "Byard" ahead of "Wyrd".
Thank you Andrew, Sine.(MJ: Your 'thorn' reference just clicked -- Thanks.)When I do a "Search All Text in All Resources" for "wyrd", among the results is a FACTBOOK entry:Among which as I scanned them were none discussing Wyrd or Old English/Anglo-Saxon Providence or Fate or Destiny. (Which is a bit weird because I do have works by Bede.) A digression: Is there a way to search/find the FB result displays (or better, the individual entries!), say, here, for Bede?I do appreciate correspondences, eg Peacemaking to pacifism, and actual variant spellings; I'd likely even smile at the odd heteronym. However, I am not a 'whatever' typist; if when I mystype something, I'd rather retype it and get it (and my fingers) right. (Nor do I need to think 'variant spelling' when I actually typed something wrong.)For "wyrd" for instance, I would accept "war" if it were to inadvertently discuss the OE greater sense for it (even "sword", likewise), but both these miss the point -- That being, I'd prefer that FB would not suppose that I really meant something, or someone, entirely different, so here is that or this or this or Byard or Gladstone ... and thence something related to that.I'd rather a message like, "Logos didn't find a match -- Here's a quick list of possible spellings" (or list of possibilities if we'd rather not offend), such a message rather than supposing an alternative 'proper' spelling then getting all digressive about that instead.As implied, I don't mind correcting my typing.