Logos sells the 2nd and 5th Edition of the book above: https://www.logos.com/search?filters=author-1663_Author&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe
But the thing is that the 4th edition just showed up in Prepub as almost funded. How do you sell the 2nd and 5th, but you just now come out with the 4th 😂
Maybe a mistake?
DAL
I'll take a guess that 4th Ed was in pre-pub for so long that it was superseded by the new edition.
Or maybe the 5th edition was so good they decided to skip the 4th 😂😂😂
It’s a Legacy Pre-Pub offer. In a couple of months the third edition will be on Pre-Pub…
Maybe yet we will see the legacy pre-pub so many are waiting upon…
How do you sell the 2nd and 5th, but you just now come out with the 4th
My guess? It is used as a textbook. The edition always counts in that case.
You may well be right. It may also be the edition that was available in WS.
How do you sell the 2nd and 5th, but you just now come out with the 4th My guess? It is used as a textbook. The edition always counts in that case.
It may also be the edition that was available in WS.
True! [Y]
Maybe it's like Star Trek movies where the even numbered ones are always better.
Haha. Perhaps it is part of the Rules of Acquisition
Fifth edition is a Reader edition; fourth will be a Research edition.
Which makes me wonder. Does anybody really want a Reader's Edition instead of a Research Edition?
Maybe I'm the one who's out of touch here, so I figured I'd ask.
Fifth edition is a Reader edition; fourth will be a Research edition. Which makes me wonder. Does anybody really want a Reader's Edition instead of a Research Edition? Maybe I'm the one who's out of touch here, so I figured I'd ask.
My preferences is always for a Research Edition. Readers edition is FL cutting corners and going back on there commitment to a high level of quality. Others will think differently but Logos built their reputation producing an electronic library of books to the standard of what they now call Logos Research editions. They did not build their trust on quality with customers via Logos Reader editions.
I don't mind "Reader's Editions" if they're bought as a Faithlife eBook and subject to publisher sales. The problem with Logos Reader's Editions is that they're relatively expensive without much added value, other than being in your Faithlife library. I guess there may be publisher agreements in place that mean certain Reader's Edition books must be in Logos rather than Faithlife eBooks.
Does anybody really want a Reader's Edition instead of a Research Edition?
It often doesn't really matter. As best I can tell, different Reader's Editions don't all have the same level of tagging as each other.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is a Reader's Edition; the only thing I've noticed that it is missing is date tagging.
Logos built their reputation producing an electronic library of books to the standard of what they now call Logos Research editions.
Looking at tagging for Sermons, Personal Letters, Outlines . . . preaching themes, topic, cultural concepts ... I've always found that Faithlife tagging depended heavily on resource type and date created. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the distinction between research/readers' edition was simply an acknowledgement of what has been the case for many years.
Logos built their reputation producing an electronic library of books to the standard of what they now call Logos Research editions. Looking at tagging for Sermons, Personal Letters, Outlines . . . preaching themes, topic, cultural concepts ... I've always found that Faithlife tagging depended heavily on resource type and date created. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the distinction between research/readers' edition was simply an acknowledgement of what has been the case for many years.
Over the years FL for Reader Editions are the tip of FL flip-flopping on the quality of what they output.
There was a point in time when Bob P said they would no longer allow third party production of Logos resources because of complaints about quality.
They then introduced e-books and flip-flopped on quality, but no only quality but truth in marketing in their claims about the ability of ebooks to accurately to link to the correct bible verse.
Reader editions became the next flip-flop and they said were are going to produce resources with less effort on tagging everything they would normally tag.
Then they made their greatest flip-flop on quality with the WS conversion an decided to dump in users libraries resources that were not fit for purpose, at times complete garbage it terms of value when there was absolutely no need to do so until the resource was fully converted. Users can still access their resources through the WS program and get a better quality experience with them through that program than the rubbish FL dumped into our libraries and then patted themselves on the back for doing so. Patting themselves on the back for dumping into users libraries resources of much poorer quality than those which led Bob P to say they would no longer allow third parties to produce resources for Logos. Yes they are over time converting them to fully functioning resources but in the meantime they have set a precedence which a lot of users have like sheep followed along with and accepted thus opening the door for them to further flip-flop on the quality standard Bob P once held for his company but no longer seems to do. What's to now stop them in the future from dumping more low quality resources into our libraries and saying they'll get around to fixing them up at a alter date.
For me I expect from Logos resources of the standard of Logos Research editions sitting back and accepting anything less would be me saying I'm ok with them to continue with the flip-flop attitude to quality when it suits them.
And I haven't even touched on the quality of their work in the handling of the introduction of additional resources types which I agree with in concept but not in how it has been implemented and for which you yourself have raise many concerns MJ.
And then their is the code they output, they just push it out the door incomplete, while marketing tells us something different and then they delay fixing it by making users vote one what broken or missing bits of the software are most important to each individual.
FL has become a company where quality is just a word used in marketing its not a pillar of what they live up to in what they produce and put on users computers. And flip-flopping on what they say to customers is acceptable practice.
For me I hold to and expect the standard Bob P set many years ago when he said third party companies could not produce resources of high enough standard that he would allow them into his software. Sadly that directive has disappeared.
