Quality control in Logos 6 - a new perspective

Page 8 of 9 (175 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next >
This post has 174 Replies | 12 Followers

Posts 3691
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 7:02 AM

Kevin A Lewis:
at least blending in an appreciation of these issue with their other concerns that we (as users/customer) may be unaware of.
 Yes

Posts 1509
Forum MVP
Fr Devin Roza | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 8:42 AM

Thanks to Francis, Sean, Bradley, and Todd.

I'm going to try to offer some concrete suggestions and feedback about specific areas I've seen could be improved. Some of these are quite specific, but maybe even those can help to identify broader problems, or at least areas where it might be worthwhile to do a review. 

1. Clause Search data. I think Dave had mentioned earlier in this thread he doesn't trust the Clause Search too much, and I have reason to not always trust it either, although it has certainly worked correctly for me most of the time. Here is an email I sent in on the 9th of October, 2014 to data@logos.com. Are these in fact errors, or am I missing something about how this tool is supposed to work?

Hello,

I ran a Clause Search today for subject-lemma:אֱלֹהִים verb-morph:V????P and was surprised by the large number of hits that I got where אֱלֹהִים was not a subject at all. It made me worried about the quality of the markup in the Clause Search database.

Some examples of what I would consider false hits (i.e., where Elohim is not in any way a subject in the phrase, not even in a broad sense of being included in a prepositional phrase which modifies the subject) are:

Judg 20:2

1 Sam 8:8

2 Kings 17:7

2 Chr 11:16; 36:16

And I could continue…

Please respond to this email to acknowledge it. In the past I have written to this address but never received a response. If I don’t receive a response I’ll post to the forums. Thanks.

Fr Devin

No response to the email to the date. Apart from the response, I wonder if these errors (supposing they are errors) are indicative of broader problems regarding the classification of subjects of clauses (or of other types of classification?). 

2. The lack of response from data@logos.com. The second is related, and that is the type of response that is given from data@logos.com. That is, none. I think that an email should be sent thanking people for sending in corrections. I'm still not even sure if you ever received this email. 

3. A specific problem with the Bible Sense Lexicon. I reported this problem to data@logos.com on the 1st of July, 2013. I have never received a response, and the problem persists:

In Genesis 49:24, 2 Samuel 23:3 and Isaiah 30:29, the word “stone” or “rock” in the phrase “Rock of Israel” or “Stone of Israel” is currently classified under the sense “stone”. It should be classified as “God ⇔ rock”.

My first report could be excused because you were busy releasing Logos and Verbum 6, but given that you have had 18 months to fix this report, and it is easy to fix, it might indicate a serious problem with the way these emails are handled. The sense “God ⇔ rock” does already exist, so I am pretty sure it's not just that you aren't yet doing this type of classification.

4. Morph tagging on the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. As I have said before, I am quite happy with the morph tagging of the Greek and Hebrew Bible, and have never had trouble with the Septuagint tagging either. I have not been as happy with the tagging of the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, although I can't say it's bad either, just not quite up to par to what I would hope for. From October 2012 to January 2013 I worked quite a bit with these texts at the Hebrew University, and remember running across a surprising number of errors (maybe one or two per chapter? I'm not sure). At the time, I sent in a bunch of corrections through the "Report a Typo" mechanism. If you have those Typo reports still registered somewhere or another, I would recommend trying to pull them up and look through them to see if they are accurate, and then based on what you find there get a feel for how few or how many errors there may be by extrapolation and how worth it or not a revision would be. 

5. Recommendations for Documentation. I am very happy to see the commitment to document tools that are of use for academics. I hope that by the time Logos 7 comes out, all the tools of most interest to academics have been documented. I think that it is important that there be a place to go to that is specifically for academics. I know that Logos has a huge and broad market, but as this thread has made clear, there are certain requirements of academics that are specific. 

Here are the tools that I think should be highest priority... I'm sure I'm missing something, but anyway, here is what I see as being most important, with a few notes about things to not forget to include (not meant to be complete, just stuff you could forget but shouldn't):

  1. Logos Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin Morphology databases. Ideally other morph databases as well, at least providing easy access when not already available to the documentation provided by the authors.
  2. Clause search database - Remember to document how you classify the subject of imperative verbs, and how to find the one actually doing the ordering using {Speaker <Person>}
  3. Biblical Sense Lexicon
  4. Factbook tagging - Include what is tagged and what isn't (e.g. abstract nouns, etc.). Include difference between something like <Event> and {Section <Event>}
  5. Reverse Interlinear tagging - After reading the docs on this, users should know things like they need to use the SBLGNT and LHB for reliable searches, they should know what criteria are used to markup words as primary or secondary, etc.
  6. Ancient Versions section of the Textual Variants tool (Rick Brannan already documented this in detail during the Logos 6 beta process on the Beta forum, it would be enough to rework that post).
  7. Ancient Literature Tool (Rick Brannan already documented this in detail during the Logos 6 beta process on the Beta forum, it would be enough to rework those posts, and hopefully provide more detail about the automated logic that went in to the data mining of the Church Fathers references).
  8. Journals tool - Document what is included and what not
  9. LiteraryType dataset - Especially important as this dataset is really quite poor as a dataset, in part as it was not designed to be used as a dataset, and so has different criteria and quality than the other datasets, and so users need to know what they can expect
  10. Cultural Concepts
  11. Cross References Tool

As I said in a previous post, I don't think documenting these tools needs to be something out of this world, or even take that long. The basic question is what does an academic need to know to use these tools, who did them, including even interns, criteria used, and what their limitations are, what is missing in the tagging, etc.

BTW, in my opinion Rick Brannon is an example of someone who seems to understand and do these things already. He also has a keen sense of the importance of releasing complete and accurate data. Thanks, Rick! I'm sure there are many others as well, I have just particularly noticed that about him, so, thanks!

6. LiteraryType dataset - I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. This dataset is particularly poor as a dataset. I have been happy with the other datasets in general, but not this one. I really think you should consider redoing it in house. At the very least, it should be a priority for documentation to warn users about its limitations, and explain why this dataset is not like the others....

7. Communication regarding incomplete datasets - In an earlier post, Sean earlier mentioned the Factbook Septuagint Deuterocanonicals dataset. For me, that dataset is actually an example of decent communication. It was always advertised as being only the Deuterocanonicals. Perfect. What is problematic is when datasets are published and it isn't clear what is missing. Think the Journals tool, Outlines Tool, Bible Book Factbook Entries, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I fully agree you need to advertise, be positive, etc. I don't think these limitations need to be bragged about. But at the same time the information needs to be available.

For tools like the Journal tool, the Outlines Tool, the Bible Book Factbook Entries, etc. that are currently being worked on, ideally I think there would be either a resource in the library that listed what works were included, or maybe a webpage with that info, or maybe both. When the datasets are updated to add more works, the list of works included is also updated.

Maybe as well on the Guides and Factbook sections there could be some sort of standard Info bubble, or help bubble that is available when documentation is available, that would bring you to the academic documentation / list of works included up to now, etc. Some tools would always have this info button (such as the Ancient Literature tool), others only when it applies (such as the Factbook entry for a Bible book).

Thanks everybody!

Posts 797
Lew Worthington | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 10:07 AM

Excellent post, Fr Devin.

Years ago, I suggested something akin to the Literary Type Dataset, but realized at the time that in my own academic work, I would never trust someone else's categorization of a text. Instead, I wanted a way to develop my own dataset, perhaps in conjunction with a published one.

By saying this, I'm not intending to make a suggestion in this current thread, but just a recognition that beyond QC issues, there will always be judgments that may be hard to document completely. Yet, such documentation should reveal as much as is comfortably possible about the approach, philosophy, and qualifications of the persons making these dataset assessments.

Posts 1509
Forum MVP
Fr Devin Roza | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 10:47 AM

Just for the record, I fully agree with all of your qualifications Lew, and that has been one of my reasons to be somewhat leery when criticisms of the datasets come without specific examples, especially given how common it is on these forums for people to misunderstand how a feature works and misinterpret it as an error.

In the case of the LiteraryType dataset, here is a post with some examples of the type of problems this dataset has: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/94632/660593.aspx. Note these aren't really errors per se... they are more just a design that isn't optimized for the type of searches people would ideally like to do from a dataset like this. 

I would peronally still prefer having it than not having it, but I do think it is one where you have to be careful. And, the fact that Faithlife didn't design the data may have implications (?) as regards their ability to correct it or adapt it based on how it's being used??? I'm not sure.

Either way, as I've said before, if you keep in mind where something comes from and what its limitations are, it can almost always be useful (cf. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/92669.aspx for the source of the LiteraryType dataset, also present in the Info window of this resource, although it should also be in an Introduction to that resource as well).

EDIT: Looks like Sean had already said he was hoping to improve and correct this dataset: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/98894.aspx. Good news. If it is low on the priority list, hopefully documentation of its sources (and limitations) can be moved up high on the priority list, at least.

Posts 3691
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 12:09 PM

Thank you, Devin, for your great posts.

Fr Devin Roza:
given how common it is on these forums for people to misunderstand how a feature works and misinterpret it as an error

I would certainly plead guilty there a number of times. But I think that lack of proper documentation, being used to encounter real errors frequently (typos, bugs and missing data) and the fact that most of the time, I am just trying to get something done, not engage in an inductive study of features/datasets all contribute quite a bit to this happening. As an analogy, one rarely accuses wrongly of lying someone who is considered truthful, but it is easier to mistakenly think that someone is lying when you know they do it often. 

And I and others are perhaps just not as smart as you and some others can be. But even conceding this is telling: what's required of a user to be able to use Logos' features in its present state? I feel for users who say that they feel that Logos has become too complicated to use. I think that it does not have to be this way. For instance, milestones search is a great idea but it is beyond usability for most of us who find it tedious (and often unsuccessful) to try to figure out the proper syntax and datatypes format. If only it could be made more user-friendly (better documentation among other things) it would be more accessible. But when you go to a context menu or a resource box to find out the datatype and then try to type it with the milestone search syntax and it does not work you can 1) give up or 2) not understanding what's wrong, think something's is defective (this would be a kind of wrong error report that you alluded to). For my part, my mind is sufficiently crowded with what pertains to my work and there's just not always room for having to do what seems like quadratic equations in order to use a feature.

I speak from personal experience, the last time I tried it, that's exactly what happened. After posting about it, I finally found the answer for that query. Yet the solution was by no means simple to reproduce (though it was a simple milestones search) and the next time I attempted it, I had it wrong again (could not remember the "clear-as-mud" way of doing this!). Bottom-line: I don't use it. As for my wife, who is also doing post-doctorate studies but is less techie than I, the moment I start trying to explain how we're supposed to do this, I've lost her. I would say that she uses perhaps 10% of the functionality I use and she is considered to be a very smart person. I would say that most academics that I know are also in that boat. Most are not techno-geeks however brilliant they may be otherwise. 

My point is this: we may have a lot of false positives on the forums, but I would still insist that a lot (not all) of it originates in problems with the product itself. I repeat what I said from the very beginning: there is great promise in the product, wonderful innovations. It is very useful. But at the same time, it is very frustrating and really needs a better finish. 

Posts 26858
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 2:23 PM

Thanks Fr. Devin for your concrete, actionable post. Because of different interests and goals in my use of Verbum/Logos, I have a few additional items and probably a different order of priorities but you are both spot on re: what is needed and how to inform Logos effectively of what is needed.

Lew Worthington, your point regarding never trusting someone else's categorization of the text is also spot on. The ability to put notes on nearly everything has finally given us non-scholars the ability to note our own questions and disagreements with the tagging offers. Now Logos needs to make those notes more visible

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 26858
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 3:56 PM

Francis, you make a good point that is requires serious thought. Much of the "advanced" Logos tools either require knowledge of other Logos features or general knowledge. It is often like throwing someone with no knowledge of algebra into calculus (yes, thanks to a much older brother I do know exactly what that feels like at the age of 10). Do you have some suggestions as to how Logos can gently indicate the requisite knowledge to use the tools while not insulting the "jump in with both feet I'll figure it out" folks? Its not a matter of brightness so much as one of style of learning.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 8066
LogosEmployee

Francis:
For instance, milestones search is a great idea but it is beyond usability for most of us who find it tedious (and often unsuccessful) to try to figure out the proper syntax and datatypes format.

We added this feature knowing that it was complex to use in its current state, but betting that for the people who did understand it, it would be an incredibly powerful feature that opens up all sort of new search possibilities.

Was this the wrong decision? Should we hold back all features until they're sufficiently usable? Would Logos 6 be better right now if we took out Milestone Search?

Francis:
Bottom-line: I don't use it.

That's OK with us. It was not our design goal in the original version of Logos 6 to make a milestone search feature that everyone could use with just a couple of clicks. We introduced hundreds of new features (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/92701.aspx) knowing that each one had a different audience, and not expecting every single upgrading customer to master them all.

That said, we recognise that it's not ideal that the software has advanced capabilities that many people find too cumbersome to use. So we use your (and others') feedback to drive the priority of UI enhancements to put the full power of those features in your hands. However, it might take us nine months to implement a "search builder" UI that exposes all the new Logos 6 search features in a user-friendly way. What if we had waited to ship Milestone Search until that was done, and then it turned out that no one really cared about that feature? We could have been using those 9 months to build something more useful. So we don't regret shipping an arcane UI for Milestone Search for "power users"; by doing that, we found out that it really is a feature that most customers want to use, and made the functionality available right now for those who want it.

Posts 1113
Sean | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 7:35 PM

Since a lot of Logos developers are active in this thread, I'll post this question here: is the forum the best way for us to report bugs/problems? On the one hand, it's great because other Logos users can interact and perhaps help us solve the problem more quickly. On the other hand, is it effective to post about a real bug here and just hope & pray it catches the eye of the right person? (At this point I'm thinking of the very tepid response repeated reports of longstanding bugs are receiving in the Android forum.) Is there a better way to do it, like an email or bug reporting tool? 

Posts 150
LogosEmployee
Todd White (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 14 2015 9:08 PM

Sean:

Since a lot of Logos developers are active in this thread, I'll post this question here: is the forum the best way for us to report bugs/problems? On the one hand, it's great because other Logos users can interact and perhaps help us solve the problem more quickly. On the other hand, is it effective to post about a real bug here and just hope & pray it catches the eye of the right person? (At this point I'm thinking of the very tepid response repeated reports of longstanding bugs are receiving in the Android forum.) Is there a better way to do it, like an email or bug reporting tool? 

The forums are the best place to report bugs. We have explored other ideas, like the respond section in the Factbook. We will continue to evaluate new options and will certainly let everyone in the forums know if that changes.

Posts 3691
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 12:36 AM

MJ. Smith:
Do you have some suggestions

(Thursday morning @ the Faithlife café)

Francis: Hi, MJ, how are you doing?

MJ: Great! Just grabbing a quick coffee. Say, have you heard of the new cool feature in Logos? Now we can do milestones searches!

Francis: Really? What's that? How does it work?

MJ: I must run so I can't tell you much about it right now. What don't you look it up?

Francis: OK! I will!!!

Francis gets home. Boy, oh, boy, oh, boy! MJ seemed really excited about that one, must be a really cool and useful feature! So, let's find out how to use it. Open the help file, type "milestone". Alright, let's see, several sections: milestones, personal books syntax, how-to, visual filters and personal books.

I know milestones have been used in personal books but that's not new, I think I read somewhere that milestone search was for all resources. So, let's start with the "Milestones" entry. OK, a definition of milestones. Nothing about milestones search. Alright, let's try "personal books syntax" then. Let's see, a couple examples of how to put milestones in pbb, page numbers, greek strong numbers, day of the year or Bible reference. I'll have to remember that it's dayofyear not dayoftheyear! I guess 12.25 must be the 25th of december. Right, under headwords, there is one more example. OK, I wished there was actual explanation and illustration on how to use search in relation to milestones, but I suppose I can try to search for one of the examples. Let's try searching the example mentioned under headwords, [[@Headword:Grace]]. I suppose that should be a basic search and I will do "all text" and "all resources". Okaaaay. nothing! Really? With all my resources? Let's see "Lookup grace". Yes! I knew it!

Well, that was not it. Then what? "How-to"? Sounds good. Rats, it's leads me back to the definition section I saw before. Visual filters? Only tells me some filters apply in resources with milestones: the search continues. Last option! "Personal Books". No! It circles me back to the same entries!

MJJJJJJJJJJJJJ! Where are you? Help meeeee! 

OK, I know! It says "Help on searching" in the search window. I'll try that. Aaw! Another dead-end! Wiki? Here it is! "Search Extensions / Milestones". Oh! Oh! The section must be in the process of edition! There is nothing there. 

OK, forums! Let's see community.logos.com, I will try specific first in the search box, "milestones search". Man alive! All these hits! None of them on the first page is on a thread dedicated to searching milestones, just passing references to my terms in other threads! 

Oh no! My class is in 10 minutes. Gotta go!

-------------------------------------------

I hope that this "dramatized" description gets something across. 

Now, let's imagine the alternate scenario, actually quite simple. 

Francis gets home. Boy, oh, boy, oh, boy! MJ seemed really excited about that one, must be a really cool and useful feature! So, let's find out how to use it. Open the help file, type "milestone". Alright, let's see, several sections: milestones, personal books syntax, how-to, visual filters and personal books, milestones search here it is!!!

Let's see: definition, good. Search syntax, helpful. Wow! These examples are fascinating! I could really use this! I really love that link to the datatype sections. Oh man! So many datatypes. Good thing that there is index to tell me what to use depending on which edition of Josephus I search, otherwise I would never remember. Look at that! I can even use the context-menu and reference box to help me. Cool! Let's do it. It works!!! Yay! Email to MJ: Hi MJ, I tried the new feature you told me about, it's awesome!

---------------------------------------------

Hopefully it also answers what you wrote Bradley. It's not that the feature is so advanced that people can't use it. I am a postgraduate researcher in biblical studies and you tell me that not using that feature is fine! That's not the right answer or approach. Advanced does not have to be arcane. But the problem clearly is documentation here, which should be an integral part of releasing a product.

It's not that I cannot figure out how to use it. It's that I don't have the time to do sleuth work of the kind described above nor should I or anyone have to if documentation was done right. This is in essence the problem: users should be given clear instructions and reference aids to use the tools, not have to figure things out by themselves and with such convoluted processes.

The solution to the problem is not as complicated as you make it sound (at least in this case). 

Posts 1509
Forum MVP
Fr Devin Roza | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 12:45 AM

Francis:

Francis gets home. Boy, oh, boy, oh, boy! MJ seemed really excited about that one, must be a really cool and useful feature! So, let's find out how to use it. Open the help file, type "milestone". Alright, let's see, several sections: milestones, personal books syntax, how-to, visual filters and personal books, milestones search here it is!!!

Let's see: definition, good. Search syntax, helpful. Wow! These examples are fascinating! I could really use this! I really love that link to the datatype sections. Oh man! So many datatypes. Good thing that there is index to tell me what to use depending on which edition of Josephus I search, otherwise I would never remember. Look at that! I can even use the context-menu and reference box to help me. Cool! Let's do it. It works!!! Yay! Email to MJ: Hi MJ, I tried the new feature you told me about, it's awesome!

---------------------------------------------

But the problem clearly is documentation here, which should be an integral part of releasing a product.

YES! This. Yes

Posts 26858
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 1:44 AM

Francis:

(Thursday morning @ the Faithlife café)

Francis: Hi, MJ, how are you doing?

MJ: Great! Just grabbing a quick coffee. Say, have you heard of the new cool feature in Logos? Now we can do milestones searches!

. . .

 Advanced does not have to be arcane. But the problem clearly is documentation here, which should be an integral part of releasing a product.

It's not that I cannot figure out how to use it. It's that I don't have the time to do sleuth work of the kind described above nor should I or anyone have to if documentation was done right. This is in essence the problem: users should be given clear instructions and reference aids to use the tools, not have to figure things out by themselves and with such convoluted processes.

 

Love your presentation ... and agree with your conclusion re: documentation of use. I think our differences are in expectations of Faithlife's responsibility in teaching us to utilize the data their software supplies. But it is definitely their responsibility to provide documentation on how to get the data out and what the data is. Your case of milestones is a bit of egg on their face in that the search doesn't even have an example ... their usual method of showing us the syntax.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2472
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 2:05 AM

Francis:
It's not that the feature is so advanced that people can't use it. I am a postgraduate researcher in biblical studies and you tell me that not using that feature is fine! That's not the right answer or approach. Advanced does not have to be arcane. But the problem clearly is documentation here, which should be an integral part of releasing a product.

It's not that I cannot figure out how to use it. It's that I don't have the time to do sleuth work of the kind described above nor should I or anyone have to if documentation was done right. This is in essence the problem: users should be given clear instructions and reference aids to use the tools, not have to figure things out by themselves and with such convoluted processes.

I get the feeling that this is not what Logos wants to hear.

Posts 10587
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 3:55 AM

Francis:

Hopefully it also answers what you wrote Bradley. It's not that the feature is so advanced that people can't use it. I am a postgraduate researcher in biblical studies and you tell me that not using that feature is fine! That's not the right answer or approach. Advanced does not have to be arcane. But the problem clearly is documentation here, which should be an integral part of releasing a product.

It's not that I cannot figure out how to use it. It's that I don't have the time to do sleuth work of the kind described above nor should I or anyone have to if documentation was done right. This is in essence the problem: users should be given clear instructions and reference aids to use the tools, not have to figure things out by themselves and with such convoluted processes.

The solution to the problem is not as complicated as you make it sound (at least in this case). 

Spot on, Francis. 

Posts 468
Charlene | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 5:12 AM

Yes Good job, Francis!

Charlene

Posts 1590
Forum MVP
Levi Durfey | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 5:24 AM

Agree completely, the help documentation is sorely lacking.

Posts 1134
Juanita | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 5:59 AM

Thank you, Francis, for an articulate presentation of what has been my experience.

Posts 113
LogosEmployee

Fr Devin Roza:

3. A specific problem with the Bible Sense Lexicon. I reported this problem to data@logos.com on the 1st of July, 2013. I have never received a response, and the problem persists:

In Genesis 49:24, 2 Samuel 23:3 and Isaiah 30:29, the word “stone” or “rock” in the phrase “Rock of Israel” or “Stone of Israel” is currently classified under the sense “stone”. It should be classified as “God ⇔ rock”.

My first report could be excused because you were busy releasing Logos and Verbum 6, but given that you have had 18 months to fix this report, and it is easy to fix, it might indicate a serious problem with the way these emails are handled. The sense “God ⇔ rock” does already exist, so I am pretty sure it's not just that you aren't yet doing this type of classification.

Fr Devin: 

These changes have now been made in the system and should be in a future update.

Posts 623
JAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 15 2015 9:30 AM

Todd White (Faithlife):
The forums are the best place to report bugs.

OK - it's best to report bugs in the forums.

What is best for other problems like the following example?

Jeremy Thompson:

 Fr Devin Roza:

3. A specific problem with the Bible Sense Lexicon. I reported this problem to data@logos.com on the 1st of July, 2013. I have never received a response, and the problem persists:

In Genesis 49:242 Samuel 23:3 and Isaiah 30:29, the word “stone” or “rock” in the phrase “Rock of Israel” or “Stone of Israel” is currently classified under the sense “stone”. It should be classified as “God ⇔ rock”.

...

These changes have now been made in the system and should be in a future update.

MJ. Smith:
Thanks Fr. Devin for your concrete, actionable post.
Yes

Thanks everybody!Dog

"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963

Page 8 of 9 (175 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > | RSS