Please add Resource Type in "Prioritize" section of library

Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:

Wild Eagle said:

Wouldn't it be nice to prioritize Bibles under Bible's section, commentaries under commentaries section and etc...?

It might be nice, but it would be ambiguous. For example, it's easy to have a Dictionary (e.g., Merriam-Webster), Encyclopedia (e.g., Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible),  a Thesaurus and a Bible Concordance (e.g., Where to Find it in the Bible) that all have articles for the English word "grace". If you double-click the word "grace", what should happen if all the resources are grouped by category/type? Does the system have to go through all prioritised resources in one category before it can move to the next?

In the current system, you can prioritise two Bible Encyclopedias, then an English dictionary, then another Bible Encyclopedia, etc. (i.e., mix and match resource types). It seems like losing this functionality would be a step backwards.

How would you envision this scenario working?

Rather than resource type, data type would be much more useful IMHO...wait a minute isn't that how Libby (L3) organises priorities.[8-)]

Hi Bradley,

Do you have access to our prioritization sync data? I would wager that for the most part, we already "group" our prioritized resources according to type. You'd be able to check, but how many users actually prioritize via mix & match?

I know it wouldn't be fun to code, but you could make it a two-stage prioritization tree. In the base prioritization, it could be according to raw priority the way you do it now. It would be a hodgepodge of resources and series and you could still retain the mix and match feature you promote. Above that, you could represent resources in their categories. Within a category they would be arranged according to their absolute prioritization--and of course you wouldn't know about prioritization relative to other categories, but you could switch back to the "base" view and tweak that if you care.

Where it gets tricky, of course, is if you add a resource to a category instead of the absolute list. But I think if you chose a reasonable default (either prioritize just below or above a neighbor resource in the absolute list), nobody would complain, and we could then tweak in the base view if desired.

Thanks, Bill

Wild Eagle said:

My point is to have separate Bibles, Commentaries, Dictionaries, journals, devotionals and etc...

Unfortunately, some people like to have a commentary series among the top 5 Bibles, so that they can always access it through the right-click menu.

And I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to prioritize journals?

Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:

How would you envision this scenario working?

I think the easiest and most customizable would be to simply add an Add Heading button, which inserted an empty [bold and slightly larger] entry, that could then be named whatever the user wanted, and dragged to whatever place in the list the user wanted. That wouldn't be too hard to code, would it?

The second thing that would help a lot, would be an <-> arrow, that made the Prioritize section wider, and automatically split the one column into as many as the width allowed, making it possible to see the whole list at once and get a far better overview than we currently have, and also making it far easier to move things around more than a few steps.

The third thing that would help would be click>shift-click and click>Cmd-click, so that we could move or delete items in groups, and not just one by one.

Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:

How would you envision this scenario working?

Sorry to jump on an old thread (I missed this one at the time). But this is how I would see it working (optionally having sections for different datatypes, not for different resource types — just like L3):

• Separating prioritisation into a separate tool like collections, so you can actually see what's going on.
• Allowing users to switch to an advanced mode of prioritisation, which would effectively use the L3 system of prioritisation. In L3, you would first choose your datatype, and then set prioritisation for that datatype. That stops all the confusion that occurs when, unexpectedly, a resource has two datatypes. Just as importantly it would also help power users see their prioritisations more clearly. It would be possible to switch from standard to advanced without losing your existing prioritisation, but it would need be a one-way switch. Most importantly, it's only a UI change, it wouldn't require any underlying architecture changes.