Confusion over Person Saul tagging

Dave Hooton

ESV has 3 results in 1 Samuel for Saul NOT INTERSECTS person:"Saul (king)"::

1 Sam 13:15 - in disputed text. Context menu lists the Person
1 Sam 15.27 - Context menu does not list the Person
1 Sam 16:21 - Context menu lists the Person

All words "Saul" have been inserted into the translation.

None of these are returned by person:"Saul (king)" and none are recognised as a Factbook tag.

So why does Context menu list Person Saul in two of the passages?

NABRE has 17 results in 1 Samuel for Saul NOT INTERSECTS person:"Saul (king)":

None of these "Saul" are returned by person:"Saul (king)"
all words "Saul" are inserted and none are a Factbook tag

So why does Context menu list Person Saul in some of the passages?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

Looks like a right mess.

and none are recognised as a Factbook tag.

I may be incorrect, but I'd jumped to the assumption that the tag had to come from the new datasets to be considered a Factbook tag. I wouldn't expect Factbook tags in Bibles.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229717#Comment_1229717

Looks like a right mess.

Tip of the iceberg!

I wouldn't expect Factbook tags in Bibles.

I can assign a Person Saul tag to an inserted "Saul" in ESV. But it seems I can add a Person tag whether already tagged or not!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229729#Comment_1229729

But it seems I can add a Person tag whether already tagged or not!

I've asked for an edit to block Factbook tags from duplicating a FL tag.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229740#Comment_1229740

I've asked for an edit to block Factbook tags from duplicating a FL tag.

Yes, I saw that and the discussion on "personal" tags vs. community/Factbook tags. Frankly, I have no appetite for this and the confusion that is generated. If they truly make up for a lack of FL tagging then the ones you have tagged should be included in your regular Bible/Books Search without loss of performance. As with other "Popular" or "Community" tagging, it does not benefit me to see what others have done because i can't dispute the rights/wrongs of it. And I can't distinguish Community tagging in resources unless I run a "Factbook Tags" Search!

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

All words "Saul" have been inserted into the translation.

As I'm sure you know, the Biblical Referents data is tagged on the original language text (LHB and SBLGNT); therefore, no inserted text can ever be found by a <Person> search.

So why does Context menu list Person Saul in two of the passages?

Without debugging it, I would guess this is due to the Logos 4 logic that shows Biblical People/Places/Things for non-RI Bible translations. Before we had RIs and tagging of individual words with biblical referents, we had a dataset that listed all the verses in which each person was mentioned. Right-click on a word checks if (a) that word is the name of a person, and (b) that person is mentioned in that verse. If so, it puts the person on the context menu. (This obviously is subject to false positives, but it works fairly well for most cases.)

Even though we have greatly improved our tagging and datasets since then, we have never deleted that code. (Partly because some users may still be relying on it; partly because it's extra effort to delete that code and make sure that removing it doesn't break anything else. And, as you have observed here, it actually provides value.)

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229771#Comment_1229771

a dataset that listed all the verses in which each person was mentioned

Your results bolster my theory. The only verses in which the context menu shows "Saul (king)" are those where there is another (tagged) mention of Saul.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229770#Comment_1229770

because i can't dispute the rights/wrongs of it.

You can dispute it in L10 but not in L9. Open the context menu, select the tag on the left, and click remove Factbook tag on the right. A certain number of removes gets it removed for everyone.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229771#Comment_1229771

Hi Bradley

As I'm sure you know, the Biblical Referents data is tagged on the original language text (LHB and SBLGNT); therefore, no inserted text can ever be found by a <Person> search.

Correct - I'm well aware of this.

Even though we have greatly improved our tagging and datasets since then, we have never deleted that code. (Partly because some users may still be relying on it;

Not sure how others can rely on that e.g. the first part tagged for "Saul" in 1 Sam 13.15 is disputed text and not in LHB, and does not return a search result. The latter part of the verse will return a Person result for "Saul", so the Context menu follows the old code for the first mention. It is spurious!

partly because it's extra effort to delete that code and make sure that removing it doesn't break anything else. And, as you have observed here, it actually provides value.)

Did I? A spurious mention in the Context menu does not provide value to me! And I think the effort should be made.

Which brings me to another "old code" issue:

e.g. "gog and magog" IN bible:"Revelation 20" in TDNT (and other resources), where Bible references in footnotes are being accepted as a milestone.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229823#Comment_1229823

Did I? A spurious mention in the Context menu does not provide value to me! And I think the effort should be made.

I'm not following how it is "spurious". The word (that the translators inserted, or which came from a different manuscript tradition) is a reference to Saul, so why is it spurious or wrong to provide a link to the Factbook for Saul on the context menu?

e.g. "gog and magog" IN bible:"Revelation 20" in TDNT (and other resources), where Bible references in footnotes are being accepted as a milestone.

This will be fixed in 10.1. (Additionally, "bible:" means "reference:" or "milestone:", so if you want only milestones, you need to specify that explicitly. Even with the bug fix for footnotes in 10.1, Rev IN bible:"Revelation 20 will still return results not in milestones.)

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229801#Comment_1229801

Open the context menu, select the tag on the left, and click remove Factbook tag on the right. A certain number of removes gets it removed for everyone.

That's not how Factbook tags work. If all of the people who created the same tag at a location delete it, then the tag goes away for everyone. If anyone who didn't create the tag removes it, then it just removes it for them. There's no "voting off the island" going on.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229717#Comment_1229717

I may be incorrect, but I'd jumped to the assumption that the tag had to come from the new datasets to be considered a Factbook tag. I wouldn't expect Factbook tags in Bibles.

Tags come from multiple sources. One is the Biblical Referents data (only available in Bibles). This is controlled by the more detailed list of options. The other source is what used to be called community tags. Faithlife is now the author for a whole bunch of these tags, but they're essentially exactly the same as any other user-contributed tag.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to communicate about these because "Factbook tag" or "Faithlife Factbook tag" is ambiguous and can mean different things.

Factbook tags from referent data are in Bibles. User-contributed Factbook tags are also available in Bibles, however Faithlife has not authored any user-contributed tags in Bibles.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229920#Comment_1229920

That's not how Factbook tags work. If all of the people who created the same tag at a location delete it, then the tag goes away for everyone. If anyone who didn't create the tag removes it, then it just removes it for them. There's no "voting off the island" going on.

That is how Community tags worked but I swear that I read in one of Ali's posts that Factbook tags do have a vote off feature.

Tags come from multiple sources. One is the Biblical Referents data (only available in Bibles).

Yes, I understand that for the filter. But in the context menu, they are given their specific type not "Factbook tag". IIRC they are not subject to the remove Factbook tag action.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229936#Comment_1229936

That is how Community tags worked but I swear that I read in one of Ali's posts that Factbook tags do have a vote off feature.

There is likely a misunderstanding somewhere with Ali's comment. There is no "vote off" feature. The functionality is essentially unchanged from the old Community tags.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229936#Comment_1229936

But in the context menu, they are given their specific type not "Factbook tag". IIRC they are not subject to the remove Factbook tag action.

Correct on both.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1229845#Comment_1229845

Did I? A spurious mention in the Context menu does not provide value to me! And I think the effort should be made.

I'm not following how it is "spurious". The word (that the translators inserted, or which came from a different manuscript tradition) is a reference to Saul, so why is it spurious or wrong to provide a link to the Factbook for Saul on the context menu?

It comes from your comment "And, as you have observed here, it actually provides value." - when I had not stated that it provides value. But I now think that was intended as a reference to your comment. I disagree that it provides value when it is not able to provide a Search result at that place, and you would know that is more important to me than using it as a Factbook reference!.

e.g. "gog and magog" IN bible:"Revelation 20" in TDNT (and other resources), where Bible references in footnotes are being accepted as a milestone.

This will be fixed in 10.1. (Additionally, "bible:" means "reference:" or "milestone:", so if you want only milestones, you need to specify that explicitly. Even with the bug fix for footnotes in 10.1, Rev IN bible:"Revelation 20 will still return results not in milestones.)

The fix will be good. But the pity is that many may regard that format as a proper milestone search because it is simple.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1230145#Comment_1230145

It comes from your comment "And, as you have observed here, it actually provides value." - when I had not stated that it provides value.

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant to state that there was value in the behaviour you observed on the context menu.

I disagree that it provides value

Understood.

But the pity is that many may regard that format as a proper milestone search because it is simple.

It is a simple search. It's our expectation that it will meet users' needs 99% of the time. But it is not a strict milestone search (and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1230324#Comment_1230324

It's our expectation that it will meet users' needs 99% of the time. But it is not a strict milestone search (and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is).

The more interesting question is what percentage of users it meets the needs of. I would not expect academics to be happy. I would expect the group that were unable to master the basics of the old syntax to be very happy.