Suggestion: Better Organisation of Prioritisation

This is prompted by (but tangential to) a couple of other threads (here and here).

I am currently using L4.0d on a Windows 7 PC.

Firstly, it seems that we should be able to expand the column entitled 'Prefer these resources' by dragging and expanding (see screenshot, and apologies for my wibbly-wobbly free-hand attempt at a straight line). Unless I have missed something, it seems that this is currently not possible.

It also seems that we should be able to expand the column to enable us to see all of our prioritisations across the screen (wrapped around with the columns lined up vertically across the screen).

The problem with the current arrangement is that the full title is not always visible, for example Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New... I know I can hover the mouse for the full title, but, with a long list of prioritisations this is a bit of a faff. Also, it seems that it is not currently possible to see the entire list of prioritisations at one time.

Secondly, and related to this, I wondered if it might be useful to be able to create collapsable folders within the prioritisation list (e.g. NT commentaries, OT commentaries, journals, bible dictionaries, etc.).

The creation of folders would, of course, be customisable and optional and I cannot see that it would impact on the desired effect of prioritisation as I do not see any benefit to prioritising a commentary over, say, a bible dictionary (please correct me if I am wrong on this).

I appreciate that I am still a relative newbie and apologies if I have missed something blindly obvious with this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Many of us have requested that we at least be able to add subheadings to indicate the groups. Your suggestions are solid.

Dave Hooton

it seems that we should be able to expand the column entitled 'Prefer these resources' by dragging and expanding

It also seems that we should be able to expand the column to enable us to see all of our prioritisations across the screen (wrapped around with the columns lined up vertically across the screen).

The history of the Prioritization "panel" was that Logos found it to be the best way to populate the list, so it is a compromise over having it in a properly adjustable pane; the issue being that dragging resources from Library will normally attempt to open them.

I can see problems with real estate if the list occupies adjacent "columns" and I'm not sure how that will help your need to see the full title. Best to keep it scrollable and have an option for how much of the Library pane it will occupy eg. a real "Browse" mode using all the pane & a "Prioritize" mode as we currently have it.

I wondered if it might be useful to be able to create collapsable folders within the prioritisation list (e.g. NT commentaries, OT commentaries, journals, bible dictionaries, etc.).

If customisable and optional it should be fine. Now, do you want the titles indented within the heading[:)]

I do not see any benefit to prioritising a commentary over, say, a bible dictionary

I prioritize a commentary with my English bibles at the top of the list! But I would still label them "Bibles" as my other Commentaries are at the bottom of the list.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157817#Comment_157817

I agree 100% that this needs to be improved. I think this is one of the areas where Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and important it would be. I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library. This would mean we could actually see the prioritisation column rather than have it so narrow!

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library.

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

+1 [Y]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I agree 100% that this needs to be improved. I think this is one of the areas where Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and important it would be. I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library. This would mean we could actually see the prioritisation column rather than have it so narrow!

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

Yes, Yes +2 [Y]

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

This sounds like a uservoice option. Sadly I am out of votes. [:(]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157859#Comment_157859

This sounds like a uservoice option. Sadly I am out of votes

I wonder if one could temporarily help drum up support for a feature by reassigning one's votes from some other features to give this one some momentum until other newbies who haven't used up their votes yet vote for it (and talk it up on the forum as well). Then when it has reached sufficent traction, you can move your votes back to features you care more about. That might be too much work to be worth it, though, for a feature that is not on your top 10 list.

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157880#Comment_157880

What I really need is to find the button that says MVP's get 100 votes. LOL

As for reassigning votes... yeah too complex I'm already juggling too many items.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157882#Comment_157882

What I really need is to find the button that says MVP's get 100 votes. LOL

Heh, heh. Actually we get a million votes each. MVP stands for megavotes person.

Andy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

...but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

This is a really great suggestion (far better than the collapsable folder thing) and would make prioritisation far more workable...

Andy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157817#Comment_157817

I wondered if it might be useful to be able to create collapsable folders within the prioritisation list (e.g. NT commentaries, OT commentaries, journals, bible dictionaries, etc.).

If customisable and optional it should be fine. Now, do you want the titles indented within the heading

[:)] ... I take your point, but, in my defence, I was posting early and before my morning coffee...!

I do not see any benefit to prioritising a commentary over, say, a bible dictionary

I prioritize a commentary with my English bibles at the top of the list! But I would still label them "Bibles" as my other Commentaries are at the bottom of the list.

I was wondering how this works? What benefit is there in prioritising a commentary with the Bibles? What effect does this have in relation to the Bibles (or do you mean that it just bumps the priority of the commentary above the other commentaries in your library)?

Thanks again in advance, Dave.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157995#Comment_157995

I was wondering how this works? What benefit is there in prioritising a commentary with the Bibles? What effect does this have in relation to the Bibles (or do you mean that it just bumps the priority of the commentary above the other commentaries in your library)?

If you prioritise a whole bible commentary or whole bible series as one of your top five prioritised resources, it appears in the right click menu when you have a Bible verse selected. That gives you two-click access to your favourite commentary. Opening it and then one further click on parallel resources gives you three-click access to any relevant commentary.

Andy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158006#Comment_158006

If you prioritise a whole bible commentary or whole bible series as one of your top five prioritised resources, it appears in the right click menu when you have a Bible verse selected. That gives you two-click access to your favourite commentary. Opening it and then one further click on parallel resources gives you three-click access to any relevant commentary.

Thanks, Mark, I'd forgot all about this... Makes absolute sense.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I agree 100% that this needs to be improved. I think this is one of the areas where Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and important it would be. I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library. This would mean we could actually see the prioritisation column rather than have it so narrow!

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

Perfect suggestion, just one additional note: instead of being able to filter the resources, it would be enough just to do the list collapsible by the type of resources. So you would open just, let's say, Commentaries section and be able to rearrange or add the commentary or whole series. Another thing that would be great (and logical in that system) that when you prioritize the resource in the library by the right click menu option, it would put it automatically into the proper section.

Logos, please, we need that feature.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158022#Comment_158022

instead of being able to filter the resources, it would be enough just to do the list collapsible by the type of resources

I don't think that would work, because it assumes (for example) that all commentaries will be together, and the example above shows that isn't always the case.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158027#Comment_158027

instead of being able to filter the resources, it would be enough just to do the list collapsible by the type of resources

I don't think that would work, because it assumes (for example) that all commentaries will be together, and the example above shows that isn't always the case.

I like the idea but agree in practice it won't work. Not only for this reason Mark, but also resource typing is at times inconsistent. For example. Some study bibles are typed as Bible Notes, others as commentaries.

Simon’s Brother

wondered if it might be useful to be able to create collapsable folders within the prioritisation list (e.g. NT commentaries, OT commentaries, journals, bible dictionaries, etc.).

The creation of folders would, of course, be customisable and optional and I cannot see that it would impact on the desired effect of prioritisation as I do not see any benefit to prioritising a commentary over, say, a bible dictionary (please correct me if I am wrong on this).

[Y][Y][Y]

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I agree 100% that this needs to be improved. I think this is one of the areas where Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and important it would be. I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library. This would mean we could actually see the prioritisation column rather than have it so narrow!

[Y]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I think this is one of the areas where
Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and
important it would be.

Logos were trying to escape the Data Type "Prioritization" of
Libronix (L3) that is by far the most logical and satisfactory method of
selecting preferred resources. Logos also thought that Prioritization
would work "out of the box" for most users. So the List was a compromise
on a compromise[:)] The logic behind resource prioritization is
anything but simple, though and I've hit a few brick walls with
suggestions due to the "by design" defence[:)]

So yes, it needs an overhaul. And a way to reduce unnecessary entries of the one resource eg.

"Apply only to..." this data type should mean exactly that; because it gets considered elsewhere for its other data types
Have an option "Apply to all but..." to exclude a data type

EDIT: After having a swim[ip] I realised something about "Apply only to..." as meaning "in this position apply this data type for this resource". If it has other data types they will be prioritised by default unless you create another "Advanced" entry in the List. So, to reduce unnecessary entries I would like just one additional option:-

"Restrict resource to..." this data type - meaning I don't want it used for any other data type.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

Bradley/Bob, we are not asking for L3 data type prioritization because the L4 wrapper is different.[:)]

Donovan R. Palmer

Secondly, and related to this, I wondered if it might be useful to be able to create collapsable folders within the prioritisation list (e.g. NT commentaries, OT commentaries, journals, bible dictionaries, etc.).

The creation of folders would, of course, be customisable and optional and I cannot see that it would impact on the desired effect of prioritisation as I do not see any benefit to prioritising a commentary over, say, a bible dictionary (please correct me if I am wrong on this).

I was struggling with this the other day and completely agree. This is the only way we are going to be able to efficiently prioritise large libraries. I really hope the designers are reading this thread! [:)]

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158173#Comment_158173

I was savage: I deleted evertthing from the list and only added back my key bibles and a couple of other resources, it has had no impact AFAIK on searching, PG/EG etc

mine is definitely managable..[:D]

I like your idea of categories..

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158209#Comment_158209

I was savage: I deleted evertthing from the list and only added back my key bibles and a couple of other resources, it has had no impact AFAIK on searching, PG/EG etc

mine is definitely managable

Mine is definately not manageable. If you have a large and varied library you have to prioritise heavily to get the most out of Logos:

Red: Bibles followed by Apocryphas.
Light pink: Apostolic Fathers
Purple: Bible Dictionaries
Green: Commentaries
Light brown: Lexicons
Grey: Systematic theologies
Plum: First-century Judaistic writings
Yellow: Devotionals

Andy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158212#Comment_158212

Your mock up, Mark, illustrates how I envisage the priorisation screen should look only with expandable columns (though I appreciate this was not your intention). I take Dave's point that additional columns reduce the amount of readable text, but there is a value in being able to see a whole bunch of resources on the screen at once.

I prefer Mark's idea of a filter to my original suggestion of collapsable folders, but fear that inconsistencies in the metadata might make this more frustrating than it need be.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158212#Comment_158212

I was savage: I deleted evertthing from the list and only added back my key bibles and a couple of other resources, it has had no impact AFAIK on searching, PG/EG etc

mine is definitely managable

Mine is definately not manageable. If you have a large and varied library you have to prioritise heavily to get the most out of Logos:

Red: Bibles followed by Apocryphas.

Light pink: Apostolic Fathers

Purple: Bible Dictionaries

Green: Commentaries

Light brown: Lexicons

Grey: Systematic theologies

Plum: First-century Judaistic writings

Yellow: Devotionals

Wow!

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157819#Comment_157819

I agree 100% that this needs to be improved. I think this is one of the areas where Logos designed a new feature without fully realising how useful and important it would be. I would personally like to see prioritisation moved to a tab of its own (like collections), rather than as a column within Library. This would mean we could actually see the prioritisation column rather than have it so narrow!

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

+1 [Y]

James W Bennett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158173#Comment_158173

"Restrict resource to..." this data type - meaning I don't want it used for any other data type.

That may be the most useful option that could be implemented. Other than folders for organization this suggestion might fix the majority of problems with prioritization.

[Y][Y][Y]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158233#Comment_158233

I would also like to be able to add separators between various types of resources, but even better would be an option to filter the prioritisation list so I could see just bibles, or just dictionaries, etc.

[Y]

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158297#Comment_158297

ok I thought I got prioritization... but obviously not... surely afer you have priorited your top 5-10 books/bible/commentaries.. the other results and where they appear in the passage gude/search etc.. are irrelevant (aren't they?)

Am I missing something important?

I have 3000+ books in my library but cant see why that should equate to a huge list like yours Mark.. is it all about control/customisation and personal preference..?? IMO if so seems a bit extreme...

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158311#Comment_158311

ok I thought I got prioritization... but obviously not... surely afer you have priorited your top 5-10 books/bible/commentaries.. the other results and where they appear in the passage gude/search etc.. are irrelevant (aren't they?)

People will get good results from prioritising 5 or 6 resources in the major categories (English Bibles, Greek & Hebrew Bibles, Dictionaries, Lexicons, Commentaries). Getting lexicons to work as you wish can be difficult (for Strong's, GK #, Greek, Hebrew, TDNT #, TWOT #) and does involve Advanced Prioritization because many handle multiple data types whilst you want specific resources for Strong's, TDNT #, etc.

I would guess that Mark has many Parallel Resource sets (PRS) and is particular about resource order in the list and in Passage Guide. It's obvious that he wants LXX resources to access an LXX lexicon before other Greek lexicons and for Strong's numbers to be found in traditional Strong's lexicons. Not everybody has the same need and I prioritize about 40 resources across the major categories.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158173#Comment_158173

I have come up with a clever hack for adding headings to divide my prioritization list up into categories (pink highlighting added in screenshot editor):

It's a new use for all those hidden resources you don't ever intend to use. I unhid a few of them, renamed them each to a section header title (e.g., "Section: Bibles"), retaining the original name in a tag just in case, as follows: "renamed from: {original title}" then prioritized them above the books in the section they were a heading for. I set the advanced prioritization to apply only to that resource, so it won't show up on me in unwanted contexts. (There's still the issue of them showing up in search results, but I can easily overlook search hits in any book titled "Section: ___"; or I could make a collection of all books in my library that do NOT have "Section" in their title and search only in that; fortunately no other books in my library do.)

Let me know if you have any tweaks to improve this. Initially I'd hoped I could make a bunch of essentially empty resources by importing empty sermon files in from L3, and use those as section headers, since they'll never show up in searches. But they all come in as one resource ("Sermons of Rosie Perera") no matter what tricks I tried. I even tried making some sermons by a different author, but it reassigned all of my sermons to that different author. Then I tried tricking Logos by making a duplicate copy of my LogosUserSermons.lbxlls but it outsmarted me and removed the duplicate. Any ideas how I could make this work? If not, I'm pretty happy with my solution. Once PBBs come along, perhaps I'll be able to make some empty PBBs and use those for this purpose.

Even with this hack for section headers, I still want some improvements to the prioritization list (some of these ideas I got from others):

Make it its own tab, complete with print/export function
Implement searching or filtering in the prioritization list (I guess you can't do both, because a Find box at the top will either do one or the other)
Allow drag & drop of multiple resources at once, both to add to the prioritization list and to move things around within it
Give us a way to filter out of our Library all resources that have been prioritized already so we can look for any we might have missed, e.g.,
rating:>0 AND prioritized:no (or "... ANDNOT prioritized:yes")

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158496#Comment_158496

I have come up with a clever hack for adding headings to divide my prioritization list up into categories

Ouch! That's a painful hack. If I was to do anything I'd scatter commentary series around because their name is in bold and it doesn't affect anything.

ESV

NET

NIV

NKJV

Pulpit - 77 vols

HBD

Ungers

Harpers

Eermans

NAC - 39 vols

DBL Greek

....

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158508#Comment_158508

I have come up with a clever hack for adding headings to divide my prioritization list up into categories

Ouch! That's a painful hack. If I was to do anything I'd scatter commentary series around because their name is in bold and it doesn't affect anything.

Hmm, your idea isn't that much better. The commentary series names do not tell you what each section is. Yes, you know, but it would be nice to have them say "Bibles," "Bible Dictionaries," etc.

What this is all telling us is that people are getting desperate and Logos needs to do something about this!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158514#Comment_158514

What this is all telling us is that people are getting desperate

That was (nearly) the point!

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158514#Comment_158514

What this is all telling us is that people are getting desperate and Logos needs to do something about this!

Yes, that is the most important information. It is up to Logos to invent some working system, whether it will be collapsible sections or filter system, that's up to them to decide. I would be happy with anything what would bring order into the list.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158570#Comment_158570

Interesting thread...

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158570#Comment_158570

I would be happy with anything what would bring order into the list.

I agree completely. It is a bit chaotic at present.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158311#Comment_158311

ok I thought I got prioritization... but obviously not... surely afer you have priorited your top 5-10 books/bible/commentaries.. the other results and where they appear in the passage gude/search etc.. are irrelevant (aren't they?)

Am I missing something important?

Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm at a conference, and have only just managed to find WiFi. Let me explain why I prioritise the way I do. I'll go through my prioritisation list I posted earlier, and explain why I bothered including what I did.

Bibles is straightforward. I guess we all do that. Apocrypha is the same principle.
I prioritise all my Bible dictionaries because I have so many of them. I know that in parallel resources, the ones nearest the top are the ones I rate the best, and therefore the ones worth reading first. It means I can choose the top dictionary, then use the right arrow key to get to my next best dictionary. If I didn't prioritise all of them I'd have to:
1. Remember which I think are best - easy for the well-known dictionaries, but sometimes I forget
2. Click on PRS, wait for several seconds, perhaps scroll, and click again in order to get to the next resource.
Commentaries are very similar re: parallel resources. But equally, in the passage guide I like to know that the commentaries near the top are the ones I most trust. If I run a passage guide on 1 Cor 1, I get 82 resources returned. It's too much to remember my best commentaries - and I often forget that the one called 1 Corinthians is the NIBC commentary whereas the one called The First Epistle to the Corinthians is the NICNT. (I know I could rename them, but prioritising is easier and has more advantages).
As Dave said, with the lexicons I want LXX lexicons to show up when I click on a word in the LXX, hence the advanced prioritisation. I also want TWO and Strongs to show up when I click on those numbers. In between are just all my lexicons - again they're all prioritised so that in the EG and PRS the best are at the top.
Systematic theologies probably don't need to be prioritised. There was a good reason, but I've forgotten it!
First-century Jewish literature needs to be prioritised as I prefer to get the English translations by default and then use the right-arrow key to switch to the original language. If I don't prioritise you sometimes get English and sometimes the original language - that's annoying.
Devotionals need to be prioritised for the home page both on the PC and iPhone.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/159142#Comment_159142

thx Mark, enjoy conference..