New collections explained & Syntax examples
Comments
-
At the moment, it seems like many different reports and functions from passage guides to collections will work better as the metadata get's "fixed" in all of the 10,000 resources that Logos has made.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Thomas Black said:
At the moment, it seems like many different reports and functions from passage guides to collections will work better as the metadata get's "fixed" in all of the 10,000 resources that Logos has made.
No rush. I can wait till the morning.
0 -
JimDunne said:
Sigh. Robert, you make my point for me very well. I watched your screencast - and it would have excluded the other 27 resources that belonged in my collection very nicely. As I said, i built the rule progressively to get the resources I wanted. Maybe yours worked for you - it wouldn't work for me. Likewise, maybe mine wouldn't work for you either.
Among the things you would exclude in my library are the excellent 7-volume systematic theology opus by Donald Bloesch - since "theology" doesn't appear in the titles of any of the books.
My brother in Christ, please believe me when I say that I'm not suggesting you're wrong, nor am I being critical of your effort. How could you possibly know that about Bloesch's work? But that's kind of the point too, though - isn't it? Why should you have to?
But here's the real point, and the BIG DEAL: What the heck are a bunch of people who are learning to use a new Bible Study tool doing, having to wrangle about the best, most efficient, accurate way to write a database query, in what looks suspiciously like a form SQL?
This whole idea is LOONEY TUNES!
And please note: I did not ever suggest that the system is unreliable. It's not - I'm sure the folks are far too talented for that to be an issue.
IF this was provided as an alternative way to build collections, backstopping an intuitive, graphical tool that allowed people to create a collection name, scroll and search through their libraries and drag stuff they want into it, THEN I can see where it would have a place. But as the only collections tool? No way.
Blessings,
Jim D.
Jim,
I've given this some thought and you're probably right. This is too much for the target audience...my mom, my neighbor, heck; my Pastor who has an IPOD and is pretty tech savvy.
Possibly they will somehow hybrid the system to make it friendlier...
I hope that there are no hard feelings...I came on pretty strong and i apologize.
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
I created a wiki that people can be referenced to for instructions. If there is something I am leaving out or is unclear please feel free to fix it or let me know. In other words, I would love for someone to proof read it. :-)
Very good write-up especially the comprehensive Filterable Fields. A couple of things might need clarification:-
field label notes:
The difference between “Tags” and “My Tags” is that tags are defined by the user. ==> both are defined by the user!
Study BiblesLibrary Size:2251 Collection Size: 5 Title: Bible Studies Rule: title:”study Bible” Manually Included Items: The NET Bible ==> the NET might make sense to you, but I would omit it as an example!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
The difference between “Tags” and “My Tags” is that tags are defined by the user. ==> both are defined by the user!
Study BiblesLibrary Size:2251 Collection Size: 5 Title: Bible Studies Rule: title:”study Bible” Manually Included Items: The NET Bible ==> the NET might make sense to you, but I would omit it as an example!
Thanks for the proof. I've updated those sections.
0 -
Robert Pavich said:JimDunne said:
Sigh. Robert, you make my point for me very well. I watched your screencast - and it would have excluded the other 27 resources that belonged in my collection very nicely. As I said, i built the rule progressively to get the resources I wanted. Maybe yours worked for you - it wouldn't work for me. Likewise, maybe mine wouldn't work for you either.
Among the things you would exclude in my library are the excellent 7-volume systematic theology opus by Donald Bloesch - since "theology" doesn't appear in the titles of any of the books.
My brother in Christ, please believe me when I say that I'm not suggesting you're wrong, nor am I being critical of your effort. How could you possibly know that about Bloesch's work? But that's kind of the point too, though - isn't it? Why should you have to?
But here's the real point, and the BIG DEAL: What the heck are a bunch of people who are learning to use a new Bible Study tool doing, having to wrangle about the best, most efficient, accurate way to write a database query, in what looks suspiciously like a form SQL?
This whole idea is LOONEY TUNES!
And please note: I did not ever suggest that the system is unreliable. It's not - I'm sure the folks are far too talented for that to be an issue.
IF this was provided as an alternative way to build collections, backstopping an intuitive, graphical tool that allowed people to create a collection name, scroll and search through their libraries and drag stuff they want into it, THEN I can see where it would have a place. But as the only collections tool? No way.
Blessings,
Jim D.
Jim,
I've given this some thought and you're probably right. This is too much for the target audience...my mom, my neighbor, heck; my Pastor who has an IPOD and is pretty tech savvy.
Possibly they will somehow hybrid the system to make it friendlier...
I hope that there are no hard feelings...I came on pretty strong and i apologize.
bob
No worries, Bob - and certainly no need to apologize..
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion achieved the whole purpose of this sort of dialogue. You convinced me to dig a little further in to the collections tool than I might otherwise have bothered to, and I convinced you to consider my point of view. No losers that I can see.
Besides, I think Logos really needs to hear this kind of feedback. It's clear from what I've read here on the forums that the new collections tool has lots of advocates. Heck, I think it's kind of fun to play with, too. But I think it's also clear that there are folks who are struggling to understand how to use the tool. And, as you pointed out, it's probably too much for the group that Logos seems to be reaching out to with this new release.
Hopefully they'll take that and run with it.
Now, about that missing Bibliography . . .
Blessings and peace, brother.
Jim D.
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:JimDunne said:
But here's the real point, and the BIG DEAL: What the heck are a bunch of people who are learning to use a new Bible Study tool doing, having to wrangle about the best, most efficient, accurate way to write a database query, in what looks suspiciously like a form SQL?
This whole idea is LOONEY TUNES!
I come at this issue 100% behind the new dynamic direction of collections in L4. However I believe you have a very valid point regarding collections being intimidating to people. I'm not sure how to do it, but I hope the brains at Logos can put together something more user friendly and less intimidating in the future.
Phil,
I really hope so, too. And as I mentioned to Bob in an earlier post, I think it should be "in addition to" as opposed to "in replacement of" the current tool.
In the meantime, I think you're doing a great job pulling together information on the collections tool and putting it in your WIKI. Thanks lots for taking the time! I've used it quite a bit already.
Blessings,
Jim D.
0 -
Daniel DeVilder said:
Jim D, I am essentially with you on your reflections. To me the ideal of dynamic collections are nice, the implementation of them is tedious and suspect for guys like me. But I NEED collections to narrow down fields of study to search within.
And I wonder why Logos couldn't use any one of a number of current library classification systems to at least START us on the path of having resources grouped logically ALREADY when we get them (and we'd have the option to edit, create dynamic rules as we wanted/could).
Peace.
Daniel,
That's an interesting idea about a library classification system. I don't know anything about them, but the concept seems to make sense, at least as a starting point, as you suggested.
What I really miss from "before" didn't really have anything to do with the software itself. Somewhere there was a website that had pre-built collections posted for all the "standard" libraries. I grabbed that, stuffed it into the software, and I at least had a framework to build on.
And I really REALLY miss Jeff Patrick's simple-to-use, elegant Collections Management addin. I am amazed that Logos didn't look at that and find a way to incorporate it (the concept) into the current version. It did just about everything you'd want a basic Collections tool to do, including drag-and-drop collection building, nested collections and showing all the books in your library that weren't assigned to a collection.
If you think about it, that's probably all the vast majority of us really need a collections tool to do. Back it up with the powerful new collections tool, and together you'd have both ease of use and tremendous power available as needed.
Take Care,
Jim D.
0 -
I have added a "defense of dynamic collections" section to the collections wiki. Sense there were some here who seem not to be sold on the "dynamic collections" idea I would like to run it by you, not so much to change your mind but to test its presentation and validity. So please let me know what you think about the following rational. I apologize for the length. :-)
From http://wiki.logos.com/Collections
I could point to the obvious rational for dynamic collections, the idea that future management of the collection is vastly minimized since resources will be added to it automatically. I could also focus on the decreased likelihood of missing a resource assuming its underlying data is correct. However I would prefer to focus on How differently collections benefited a user in L3 as opposed to how they benefit us know in L4.
In L3 one of the primary reasons to create a collection was to decrease the amount of time it took to search one's library. To perform a search of one's entire library could be very time consuming and limiting it to only the most necessary resources had huge time saving benefits. It was well worth one's time to invest in setting up and maintaining one's collections because it paid off well time wise in the end.
In L4 the time savings becomes irrelevant as far as the amount of time it takes to search a library is concerned. Searching is no longer measured in minutes, but in seconds. Thus the focus on the collections' importance shifts from being primarily time saving to being primarily organizational. Time is saved not because of the amount of time it takes Logos to search, but by the amount of time it takes us, the user, to filter through what Logos returns.
In L3 the focus was on making sure the wrong books were not in the collection because the goal was to limit. In L4 the focus is on making sure the right books are in the collection because the goal is to find everything that is relevant while still limiting what is irrelevant. Thus, in my view the goal of an L4 collection is to get close, not to get exact. If a wayward resource finds its way into a collection, so what? It does not effect the amount of time it takes Logos to search significantly. There's a good change it won't end up in search results when I'm searching on the collection because it probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with what I'm looking for. If I do notice it in search results and want to get rid of it I can simply add it to the exclusion list.
The trickier part of forming collections in L4 is making sure what you do want in the collection is indeed in the collection. This, to me, is no different then in L3. In L3 we created search strings as well. We typed our search string into a box, looked through a list, and picked the appropriate resources. We were just as likely to miss a resource we didn't know about in L3 as we are in L4, one that did not match the strings we were using to limit our options. Some resources we will probably have to know about and add to a collection manually, that's why L4 has the ability to do so. But the goal of collections in L4 seems to be to make it quick, minimize maintenance, and get to searching. If collections were a micro-managed feature of L4 the time it would take to manage the collection would outweigh the time it would save.0 -
Things like this would be in cool Google Wave...
0 -
Nick Pisciotti said:
Things like this would be in cool Google Wave...
I need to stay away from testing things out for a while. L4 has taken too much of my time, and still is :-)
0 -
Philip,
you are exactly right.
Nobody even remembers why collections were necessary in V3...we look with rose colored glasses sometimes.
I remember when I complained on the newsgroup about the speed...the solution? Search smaller chunks....so that's what I did.
Now, in V4 my question always is: "...What am I asking, and who do I want to ask about it?" and I build my collection accordingly.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Agreed, and the solution may be coming as Bob & Co determine how to add collapsible sections (by book) to the search report. At least I think that's under consideration.Philip Spitzer said:Time is saved not because of the amount of time it takes Logos to search, but by the amount of time it takes us, the user, to filter through what Logos returns.
Philip one final point to make perhaps:
Library Expansion
Logos is continuing to grow it's Library offering. With individual users amassing libraries beyond the base collections, dynamic collections begin to make even more sense. The burden of managing a library is now automated according to the rules the user sets up, freeing him to study the Word of God with all of the helps that Logos provides.
Philip Spitzer said:Nick Pisciotti said:Things like this would be in cool Google Wave...
I need to stay away from testing things out for a while. L4 has taken too much of my time, and still is :-)
Me too. I have to cut of my forum time today soon.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Thomas Black said:
Logos is continuing to grow it's Library offering. With individual users amassing libraries beyond the base collections, dynamic collections begin to make even more sense. The burden of managing a library is now automated according to the rules the user sets up, freeing him to study the Word of God with all of the helps that Logos provides.
Great thought. I'll add it.
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
I have added a "defense of dynamic collections" section to the collections wiki. Sense there were some here who seem not to be sold on the "dynamic collections" idea I would like to run it by you, not so much to change your mind but to test its presentation and validity. So please let me know what you think about the following rational. I apologize for the length. :-)
From http://wiki.logos.com/Collections
I could point to the obvious rational for dynamic collections, . . . (content omitted for space- Jim Dunne) . . . were a micro-managed feature of L4 the time it would take to manage the collection would outweigh the time it would save.
Phil -
This is really well done. A couple of things occured to me in reading this:
- As I read (and re-read) your "defense" (Hmm - potential new topic here - Collections Apologetics!) it occured to me that my issue with dynamic collections has very little to do with the concept, and a lot to do with the method Logos has chosen to use to implement it.
It's difficult to argue rationally against benefits like speed and self-maintenance. But it's easy to argue rationally against things like text-based creation tools, SQL-like language, abbreviations, tags, etc. What's next? Triple nested do-loops, XOR's and if/then/else?
Like, how very 80's, dude.
- I remain skeptical about the current collection tools ability to accurately sort things out as folks add new stuff, based on the average persons ability to construct a logically robust filter, but people will have to discover that (or not) and deal with it on their own, I guess.
- I agree that Collections in v3 were a time-saver. But the other thing they did, at least for me, was provide a sense of order and organization to my library. I like things in neat organized stacks/piles/lists. Back in the "old days"
another software product (which shall not be named) showed you the books in your (limited) library by displaying tiny little books on topically-identified "shelves". In retrospect, perhaps a bit silly, and certainly not practical today. But that yen for order and organization remains. One could argue that this is a non-useful "look and feel" sort of thing, I suppose - but I feel like it's important. - As a follow-on to my last point, and I only claim to speak for my self here, when you say something like ". . . in my view the goal of an L4 collection is to get close, not to get exact. If a wayward resource finds its way into a collection, so what?" , my tidy little mind screams out in anguished protest.
Words like "sloppy" and "disorganized" and "inaccurate" leap out. If we're going to do it, can't we please be provided with tools to do it accurately?So in summary, I guess I"m saying I'm on board for the Dynamic Collections concept , and I remain staunchly opposed to the current tool, if it's the only method provided.
Take care,
Jim D.
0 -
Mark A. Smith said:
Yes, this is exactly what I anticipate the folks I've tried to help use Logos in the past are going to say when it comes to forming collections. "I really don't understand why they've made it so hard." Dynamic, shmamic. Make it simple. Add radio buttons, a drop down menu, something... for the average Joe or Jill.
I agree with Mark...although I'm quite confident as v. 4 matures this will be an area that Logos will tackle, if in fact the target audience includes the "average joe" using Bible software.
Mitch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.franklinchurchofchrist.com0 -
JimDunne said:
- As I read (and re-read) your "defense" (Hmm - potential new topic here - Collections Apologetics!) it occured to me that my issue with dynamic collections has very little to do with the concept, and a lot to do with the method Logos has chosen to use to implement it.
I agree that Collection creation in L4 as it currently stands is contrary to the feel of almost everything else in L4. I am curious to see how they develop as L4 matures.
JimDunne said:Like, how very 80's, dude.
My, what fun years those were......
JimDunne said:As a follow-on to my last point, and I only claim to speak for my self here, when you say something like ". . . in my view the goal of an L4 collection is to get close, not to get exact. If a wayward resource finds its way into a collection, so what?" , my tidy little mind screams out in anguished protest.
Words like "sloppy" and "disorganized" and "inaccurate" leap out. If we're going to do it, can't we please be provided with tools to do it accurately?I would certainly argue with you that Library management should be neat and tidy. But in L4 this is a function of tagging and rating, not collections. Collections benefit searching, not managing. If I want a precise list of books all I have to do is give them the same tag. This is why a master tag list is SO important. Keep in mind you can tag multiple resources at once and very quickly. Then you can view that precise set of books with such a simple tag as mytag:YYY. When doing a search type mytag: and a list of all your tags are displayed so that you can search all resources with a given tag. That's why I'm not concerned about collections being perfect, they only need to be fast to create and "close enough". If I want perfection, I'll use tags. In many ways Tags are a closer parallel to L3 collection then L4 collections are!
JimDunne said:So in summary, I guess I"m saying I'm on board for the Dynamic Collections concept , and I remain staunchly opposed to the current tool, if it's the only method provided.
I stand with you in hoping the tool is improved. I just see it as a good tool that can be improved as opposed to needing to start from scratch.
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
I agree that Collection creation in L4 as it currently stands is contrary to the feel of almost everything else in L4. I am curious to see how they develop as L4 matures.
I would certainly argue with you that Library management should be neat and tidy. But in L4 this is a function of tagging and rating, not collections. Collections benefit searching, not managing. If I want a precise list of books all I have to do is give them the same tag. This is why a master tag list is SO important. Keep in mind you can tag multiple resources at once and very quickly. Then you can view that precise set of books with such a simple tag as mytag:YYY. When doing a search type mytag: and a list of all your tags are displayed so that you can search all resources with a given tag. That's why I'm not concerned about collections being perfect, they only need to be fast to create and "close enough". If I want perfection, I'll use tags. In many ways Tags are a closer parallel to L3 collection then L4 collections are!
I stand with you in hoping the tool is improved. I just see it as a good tool that can be improved as opposed to needing to start from scratch.
Phil -
I'm guessing trom the position you took in your reply that you probably meant "agree', not "argue". Yes?
Wow, this is great insight on the use of tags. Thanks very much! I need to play with this some more. So many new toys to play with, so little time. Sigh.
Take care,
Jim D.
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
If I want perfection, I'll use tags. In many ways Tags are a closer parallel to L3 collection then L4 collections are!
But you tag as extensively as you do because the library metadata is barely usable, which drags us all back to to the level of L3, and Collections are getting a bit of a hammering as a result. So I'm hoping that Logos will really get on with the job of improving the metadata, because that will improve the tool. I fear that if they stick to their ground about types in particular, Collections will prove to be very frustrating and may need a complete workover.
My Suggestion would be to have a parallel mytype tag which will be populated with Logos type data, but which we obviously can change to our hearts content. This will relieve the current overloading of the Commentary and Dictionary types (by Logos) and prevent the overloading of mytag by users.
Ultimately, Collections should benefit both Library Management and Searching. That was my vision in the L3 days when Bob was tantalising us with snippets of what was possible.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
JimDunne said:
I'm guessing trom the position you took in your reply that you probably meant "agree', not "argue". Yes?
I meant argue alongside of, as in on the same team, but agree would have certainly been clearer :-)
JimDunne said:Wow, this is great insight on the use of tags. Thanks very much! I need to play with this some more.
Keep in mind you can tag multiple items at once. Happy playing!
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
But you tag as extensively as you do because the library metadata is barely usable, which drags us all back to to the level of L3, and Collections are getting a bit of a hammering as a result.
I agree that cleaning up the metadata will go a long way in calming some of the opposition to collections, but for those who want to be more involved in the management and oversight of their libraries, tags may be the way to go. Personally I do not want to manage 2200 resources. That's what I pay Logos for :-)
0 -
Hey Philip,
Can you have a look at the images I added to your page on collections - is it OK?
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
Hey Philip,
Can you have a look at the images I added to your page on collections - is it OK?
Looks good to me. Teamwork is a beautiful thing. Thanks!
While I'm posting I might as well add in another thought that I had. For those who want to manage their resources by tagging them rather then trusting collections, collections still have great value. Suppose you want to tag your Theologies into sub categories e.g. TheoSys for systematic theologies, TheoJourn for theological journals, and TheoMono for resources dealing with one particular theology. There may be times when you want to search all of these resources, rather then each one separately. Rather then doubling your tagging work whenever a new resource is added, just create a Collection with a rule of [mytag:theo]. When you go to search us tags to search subcategories and collections primary categories. If you have another non-theological tag containing theo you can use [mytag:theosys, theojourn, theomono]. If you want only your favorite theologies from these categories add [ AND rating:>=3]. Or if you want Logos to back you up and make sure you didn't forget to tag a resource use a string that finds theologies based on titles and types and then add [ OR mytag:theo] to the end. That will create a "checks and balance".
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
Ultimately, Collections should benefit both Library Management and Searching.
A fair enough statement :-)
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
There may be times when you want to search all of these resources, rather then each one separately. Rather then doubling your tagging work whenever a new resource is added, just create a Collection with a rule of [mytag:theo]. When you go to search us tags to search subcategories and collections primary categories. If you have another non-theological tag containing theo you can use [mytag:theosys, theojourn, theomono].
Instead, you could just use nested collections and search under a single collection or the higher group of collections. I've tested this and it works. See post http://community.logos.com/forums/p/3800/41270.aspx#41270
0 -
I am new to posting, so I am not sure if I am doing this right, but here goes.
I really like all these suggestions for collections, but I would like to know what all "commands" are allowed to be used to help limit your selections.
I have looked under "HELP" and have found some, but after watching some of the training videos, I see there are many more.
Then when I read on the FORUMS, I see evern more.
Is there anyone who has a listing of all the commands available and instructions what they do?
Thanks
0 -
No question that Collections are a valuable tool.
They will never replace the work each user will need to do because of the subjective demands of each user. The fact that Collections are user-definable is part of what makes LOGOS so great.
Suggestion: Dropdown menus like those which define search limits and which resources / Collections to search. These could contain a comprehensive list of all the categories. These could begin with a dropdown menu that asks if you want to 'Include' or 'Exclude' the following items.
In the Visual Filters section, each time you add a new criteria, a new line pops up allowing the option of adding other filters. This could help a great deal. The user can keep adding until they get to where they want to be.
It would be nice if the My Library window could be open and accessible during this process.
BUT: what might be a great help to the "average user" who has no patience for these kind of "under-the-hood" options ... if a battery of 10-20 default collections came with each package - RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. Though these could still be user-definable, those who have no desire to meddle in such matters would still gain enormously from the addition of these Collections. This would help LOGOS stay true to their desire that EVERYONE experience Bible Study 'reimagined' AND also maintain their status as a software package that DOES allow a huge selection of tools for the more advanced users.
0 -
PS - What Philip is doing is a great beginning.
0 -
Hi, thanks for the post - one question - once I type the rule and can see the result set - How do I select all? There is nothing on the right mouse click menu, and Ctl-A doesn't do anything. So I have to drag and drop my resources one at a time - a real pain and time intensive. I am running Logos 4 under XP Service Pack 3. Any helpful comments appreciated.
0 -
Ignore my question - I have worked it out. The rule executes and gives me a list. I seem to then have to drag and drop resources from my library to then refine the rule.
0
