This MUST be changed
I really do not want to have user ratings and tagging installed by default on my system, as a minimum this needs to be made an option so that I can disable it. I make limited use of tagging and ratings deliberately and it is plain wrong that my information panel shows a rating on a resource that I have not personally rated. Both of these features are very personal and it is "My Library". I get that Logos is moving towards a collaborative model but we need to be able decided whether we collaborate and with who.
Read elsewhere that this was challenged in the Beta, I think someone should have listened and changed this before the release.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
Comments
-
The issue you mention is the one single thing I don't understand about Logos. Forcing an issue they know will be a problem. I was surprised about someone else's 'stars' showing up where no stars yesterday. I don't use stars since I like all my books I haven't refunded/hidden.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
This is not the first time that something was challenged during beta, was not listened, and caused a major backlash.Graham Owen said:Read elsewhere that this was challenged in the Beta, I think someone should have listened and changed this before the release.
0 -
Graham Owen said:
I really do not want to have user ratings and tagging installed by default on my system, as a minimum this needs to be made an option so that I can disable it. I make limited use of tagging and ratings deliberately and it is plain wrong that my information panel shows a rating on a resource that I have not personally rated. Both of these features are very personal and it is "My Library". I get that Logos is moving towards a collaborative model but we need to be able decided whether we collaborate and with who.
Read elsewhere that this was challenged in the Beta, I think someone should have listened and changed this before the release.
As far as I know, community ratings only appear for resources you haven't rated (above "0"). The dev's considered a rating of "0" to equal "unrated." Some users challenged that assumption, and so Logos is considering redesigning this feature.
Yes, those in the beta testing period did make this request. We know it's being considered, can't say I've heard any decision about if/when. But I expect an affirmative decision, and I expect the option to be tested sometime soon.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
tom said:
This is not the first time that something was challenged during beta, was not listened, and caused a major backlash.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the beta testers weren't listened to on this. We were. See my previous post in this thread.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
On the bright side, now I'm not quite so disappointed that I can't upgrade to Logos 5 yet. Maybe by the time the standalone engine and minimal crossgrade come out, this will be fixed.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
As far as I know, community ratings only appear for resources you haven't rated (above "0").
But, as mentioned elsewhere, this ignores the fact that I may have deliberately left a resource rated as "0".
Richard DeRuiter said:Yes, those in the beta testing period did make this request. We know it's being considered,
I can see this one becoming a major issue if they don't address it quickly, we have had too many bad default choices in Logos 4 and now Logos 5 launches with more. You can't take two user data fields designed to help us manage our libraries and then change them to user wide
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Graham Owen said:
You can't take two user data fields designed to help us manage our libraries and then change them to user wide
I actually quite like it. I can imagine I would find it helpful to gauge popularity/interest in a resource when I am looking to do some light reading. I accept that any rating system has its limitations.
I can understand that it would make sense to offer an option to disable/hide this feature.
0 -
Graham Owen said:
You can't take two user data fields designed to help us manage our libraries and then change them to user wide
This is the heart of the matter, and I quite agree. At the moment, there are two work-arounds:
- Rate all your resources with 1-5 stars, and have nothing as zero stars.
- Create a collection for starred resources, and use the new library collections dropdown to exclude zero-starred items from your library view. If you zero-rate them, you probably don't mind not seeing them...
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Andy Evans said:
I actually quite like it.
Happy that you like it to be honest I don't mind it being in the program just want to be able to disable it. For me the feature is useless if I do not know the profile of those who did the rating and the way that I rate books probably won't help other people either to be honest for privacy reasons I would actually also like to have the option to disable the upload of my personal rating and tags but I can't see that happening!
Personally I think that the Logos developers need to learn that just because you can do something with the code and data it does not mean that you should. It does seem that we spend a lot of time trying to get things changed that should not have been there in the first place and trying to influence development priorities.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Logos 5 seems really great so far. I am very happy that I upgraded.
But you are right, Graham. Displaying the tagging and rating of other users should be made optional. All new design changes need some time getting used to, but this one does not seem right.
For instance, many books in the Sheffield JSOT and JSNT supplement series seem to get a low rating, but they are excellent scholarly works. I read many of them in my work as a university professor. If some users with different needs from mine don't like the books because the books are too narrow and technical in scope and give them a low rating for their own personal reference, that information has very little relevance for me. We all rate books in Logos according to our own needs and preferences.
Logos, please add a simple switch in Settings so we can turn the community tags and ratings on and off.Otherwise, once again, congratulations to Logos for a great new version of the software! [H]
0 -
Graham Owen said:
Happy that you like it to be honest I don't mind it being in the program just want to be able to disable it.
This makes sense. I do agree with your suggestion. [:D]
0 -
I don't have L5 yet, but I assume from Mark's work-around, people best do this BEFORE the community stars come in since there won't be any zero stars left after L5 is loaded?
I also don't see how Logos can undo 'the damage' unless they had some backups. That'd be a big mess.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
At the moment, there are two work-arounds:
- Rate all your resources with 1-5 stars, and have nothing as zero stars.
- Create a collection for starred resources, and use the new library collections dropdown to exclude zero-starred items from your library view. If you zero-rate them, you probably don't mind not seeing them...
This is another Logos theme, we have to come up with a user work around for a poorly implemented change.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like and personally I'm not phased by the upgrade approach as it's pretty much the same as for 4. It just frustrates me that they make these 'little decisions' without thinking about the users and the way that we already use the system so we end up with a 'major' customer satisfaction issue.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
DMB said:
I don't have L5 yet, but I assume from Mark's work-around, people best do this BEFORE the community stars come in since there won't be any zero stars left after L5 is loaded?
I also don't see how Logos can undo 'the damage' unless they had some backups. That'd be a big mess.
To be clear to everyone, the problem is not how data is stored, it's how it's displayed. Your copy of Logos stores both your own rating for each resource, and the community rating. These are stored separately, in different fields. The problem is that the rating column of the library displays the community rating, if there is no user rating (or if the user rating is 0).
That means if you filter the library by rating:0, it shows all the resources you have zero-rated (or never rated), regardless of their community rating.
And all that means that my workaround can be done at any time, and there's no damage for Logos to undo. They just need to provide a column that displays my ratings only, so that users like Graham (and me!) can switch to that column instead of the default column which shows user/community ratings together.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
DMB said:
I don't have L5 yet, but I assume from Mark's work-around, people best do this BEFORE the community stars come in since there won't be any zero stars left after L5 is loaded?
I also don't see how Logos can undo 'the damage' unless they had some backups. That'd be a big mess.
There's no damage. They are 2 separate values that are displayed in one field. If you use the "rating:" filter, it only shows resource that you have rated. For example "rating:4" only shows resources that you have rated 4, not what others have rated.
If I use "rating:0", I see the resources that I have rated zero, but those entries show the community ratings (blue stars instead of no gold stars).
If Logos decided to change this, it's only a display change, not a database content change.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Graham Owen said:
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like and personally I'm not phased by the upgrade approach as it's pretty much the same as for 4. It just frustrates me that they make these 'little decisions' without thinking about the users and the way that we already use the system so we end up with a 'major' customer satisfaction issue.
A note about Logos not thinking about users: If it's any consolation, during the beta testing, the rating field used in Collections also started using community ratings, so that everyone's collections that relied on that field suddenly changed. In fairness to Logos, they reverted it within a few days as soon as the problems were pointed out. Because that made things a lot better than they had been, the beta testers didn't make as much noise about the ratings column in the library as perhaps we might otherwise have done (although two or three of us did continue to raise it quietly). Remember, there are a huge amount of changes in L5, not least the new features, and we all had to prioritize which issues we felt were most important.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
If it's any consolation, during the beta testing, the rating field also started using community ratings
Beginning to think that I should have stayed on the Beta channel for 4 but decided to devote my time to using rather than testing the program about 18 months ago.
Mark Barnes said:In fairness to Logos, they reverted it within a few days as soon as the problems were pointed out.
Hope this one is fixed quickly and it proves to be a storm in a tea cup.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Thanks, Todd and Mark. But I DID go and change all 3000+ books in my library to '1' though I guess not needed. Always like to be prepared!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
From Mark Barnes
“”To be clear to everyone, the problem is not how data is stored, it's how it's displayed. Your copy of Logos stores both your own rating for each resource, and the community rating. These are stored separately, in different fields. The problem is that the rating column of the library displays the community rating, if there is no user rating (or if the user rating is 0).””
Question: How long after receiving a resource do we have to rate it OUR WAY before community rating takes effect?
(but praise God that OUR settings are safe even it not shown)
And we have sub groups within the Logos community that would rate resources as “God given” [5] or “Heretical” [1] and other sub groups that would call them just the opposite way.
We need to be able to turn Community ratings OFF!!!0 -
nevermind
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
Was a bit concerned when I first saw this thread since I rarely use ratings but expect them to behave a certain way since I do have a few collections based on ratings. But I see that the library view displays community ratings different than personal ratings, and the collections rule only takes personal ratings into account, so I don't really have a problem with this. Probably a better idea to have a separate fields for community ratings as with community tags, but it doesn't affect how things work either way.
0 -
David Ames said:
Question: How long after receiving a resource do we have to rate it OUR WAY before community rating takes effect?
(but praise God that OUR settings are safe even it not shown)The last part is true of your new (unrated) resources as they will be YOUR rating:0 by default until changed! Note that Logos have removed the implied collection of rating:0 and you can only select rating:1 thru 5 in the menus. To display YOUR unrated resources use rating:0 in the Find box (but they will be displayed with Community values).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Todd Phillips said:
If I use "rating:0", I see the resources that I have rated zero, but those entries show the community ratings (blue stars instead of no gold stars).
If Logos decided to change this, it's only a display change, not a database content change.
When we sort the Library by Rating Logos also have to stop sorting them by their community value.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
I honestly don't understand why it would be so difficult to show the individual rating and the community rating. Individual rating is what factors into community rating, but the read-only display of community rating lets us see how it is rated more widely.
The other consideration in using our ratings to contribute to community rating is the fact that some folks use a specific rating value to denote a resource as unread. I saw this suggestion a while back - folks using a rating of 2 stars to indicate that they have not read the resource. While I'm inconsistent in doing that, I have done it. This would give numerous resources a rating unrelated to how a user might really view the resource.
Donnie
0 -
And some people rate a good resource with 1 start (#1 being the best) and other rate a good resource with 5 starts.Donnie Hale said:inconsistent
0 -
tom said:
And some people rate a good resource with 1 start (#1 being the best) and other rate a good resource with 5 starts.
Anyone who rates their resources that way should have Logos silently uninstalled.
From iTunes to Amazon to everything else, star ratings are "more stars is better."Donnie
0 -
Donnie Hale said:tom said:
And some people rate a good resource with 1 start (#1 being the best) and other rate a good resource with 5 starts.
Anyone who rates their resources that way should have Logos silently uninstalled.
From iTunes to Amazon to everything else, star ratings are "more stars is better."Donnie
Stars are dealt with in astronomy. At night a number 1 star can often be seen even in the city while a number 5 star can only be seen far from the city lights. [and number 10 stars need lots of help under the darkest skys to be seen] The lower the number the better! The sun is about minus twenty six. Those listed I.E. “”iTunes to Amazon to everything else”” are just WRONG – sorry
[low numbers are more important under well defined rules in some circles]
[IMHO and that of all astronomers] [That is the feature MUST be changed - we can come up with many reasons]
0 -
Use this filter: rating:>0
You display only your own star rating system.
Everything works like before--only even better: I personally find access to community ratings helpful.
0 -
Unless you see the universe like David Ames, in which case you might try rating:<0 or perhaps rating:=SQRT -1 I haven't tried that yet.
[:O]
Just kidding of course. Actually I prefer David's system, but, sadly I never liked math that well.
0 -
Oh one more thing I like. If you filter by rating:=0 then you can see community ratings of all the books you have not rated.
0 -
Graham Owen said:
I really do not want to have user ratings and tagging installed by default on my system, as a minimum this needs to be made an option so that I can disable it.
The user tagging is a separate column, isn't it? So can't you just right-click and uncheck it?
I agree the user ratings should be a separate column as well.
Graham Owen said:for privacy reasons I would actually also like to have the option to disable the upload of my personal rating and tags but I can't see that happening!
There's a setting called something like Send feedback. Doesn't turning that off accomplish this?
Mark Barnes said:That means if you filter the library by rating:0, it shows all the resources you have zero-rated (or never rated), regardless of their community rating.
Thanks for that assurance. That was my worst worry when I first heard about this.
Dave Hooton said:Note that Logos have removed the implied collection of rating:0 and you can only select rating:1 thru 5 in the menus.
[N]
Dave Hooton said:When we sort the Library by Rating Logos also have to stop sorting them by their community value.
Definitely!
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
As far as I know, community ratings only appear for resources you haven't rated (above "0"). The dev's considered a rating of "0" to equal "unrated." Some users challenged that assumption, and so Logos is considering redesigning this feature.
It is a tee-totally dumb idea. Who came up with that one? Sounds like some of the ideas I've come up with in my Church, and then wondered, "What was I thinking?"
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
You make those kind of decisions too
glad to see I'm not the only one who wonders what they were thinking.0 -
fgh said:
There's a setting called something like Send feedback. Doesn't turning that off accomplish this?
I doubt it, this data is most likely harvested from the data that is synched to the Logos servers.
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
Graham Owen said:fgh said:
There's a setting called something like Send feedback. Doesn't turning that off accomplish this?
I doubt it, this data is most likely harvested from the data that is synched to the Logos servers.
They have the right to use the feedback info, if our setting allows it, but I sure hope the EULA and US law doesn't allow them to tap into our private data. That would upset me a lot. And what use would it be to have a feedback option that can be turned off, if they then go ahead and collect our data anyway?
We need an authoritative answer from Logos on this!
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
fgh said:
They have the right to use the feedback info, if our setting allows it, but I sure hope the EULA and US law doesn't allow them to tap into our private data. That would upset me a lot. And what use would it be to have a feedback option that can be turned off, if they then go ahead and collect our data anyway?
We need an authoritative answer from Logos on this!
[Y]
0 -
it seems like the diversity of the community that uses logos would make a community rating unhelpful to people who use the software.
IE a catholic might rate Arminius a bit higher than would a reform southern baptist.
Just a thought.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Ken Baker said:
it seems like the diversity of the community that uses logos would make a community rating unhelpful to people who use the software.
I see your point, and I REALLY don't like my ratings united with community ratings. It looks like that might change… I hope. [;)]
I do think that community ratings could be very helpful, however. Let me preface my comments… Books that are "popular" aren't always right, or helpful. Sometimes there are lesser known "gems" which "no one" has read… but if you walk into a book store and you want to learn how to X, and you have no experience with X, nor do you know anyone with experience with X, a good place to start is to see what books are popular and sell well on the subject of X.
I will often go to Amazon (before buying from Logos/Vyrso of course [:)]) to see 1) how many stars the book has, 2) how many people rated the book, 3) to read the reviews, and 4) to read the blurbs and plugs. In my opinion, community ratings can be helpful to me in a similar fashion, along with resource reviews on the Logos site.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
If they could add some granularity to the community ratings I think we could have a product that is ALOT more usefull (the community ratings).
Simply lumping us together based upon some simply demographics information would make a significant difference...
Age:
Gender:
Reformed? Y/NDenominational Affiliation: ___
ETC.
Then, when showing the ratings for piper, consider only the ratings of those who would answer like I would - Reformed in my soteriology, Southern Baptist, 20-30, Male.
Chances are good for someone like me, Pipers resources are going to be rated quite highly, along with Chandler, Thabiti, Dever, Tony Merida, David Platt, Danny Akin, Al Mohler, Stephen Davey, Spurgeon, etc.
While an 80 year old catholic woman would have a different list of people she prefers.
Adding some automated granularity might benefit us all, and would be relatively simple I should think, to code.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
fgh said:Graham Owen said:fgh said:
There's a setting called something like Send feedback. Doesn't turning that off accomplish this?
I doubt it, this data is most likely harvested from the data that is synched to the Logos servers.
They have the right to use the feedback info, if our setting allows it, but I sure hope the EULA and US law doesn't allow them to tap into our private data. That would upset me a lot. And what use would it be to have a feedback option that can be turned off, if they then go ahead and collect our data anyway?
We need an authoritative answer from Logos on this!
According to the EULA at http://www.logos.com/support/eula
"Logos will not share your data without your permission, but may examine it programmatically for anonymous statistical purposes or in order to provide technical support. DO NOT STORE HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN THE SOFTWARE."
Aggregated ratings would be considered an "anonymous statistical purpose". I dont know if the feedback option affects this.
0 -
Ken Baker said:
Adding some automated granularity might benefit us all, and would be relatively simple I should think, to code.
Part A of above sentence: Yes.
Part B of above sentence: I doubt it.
First of all, it's really hard to peg people into categories. For instance I'm Reformed, but also decidedly not cessationist. I'm theologically conservative, but also firmly egalitarian. I tend to be more interested in an author's scholarship than his theological background. In other words, like everyone else, I'm unique. Creating a category just for me, or that I would find to be exactly what I need/want, would be near to impossible.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Unless of course, only your ratings showed in your software. LOGOS has over reached here and they should give us an on/off switch immediately.
Rich+
0
