Searching foonotes in Bible search

This is the first time I have found that a Bible search on "All Bible Text" searches the footnotes.

It used to be that if you wanted to search footnotes you had to do a Basic search. I don't think a footnote should qualify as "Bible Text".

I don't have a problem with allowing footnote searches in Bible searches. It is actually nice to have the results display by verse rather than by chapter. But it should only happen when a user picks a search field for the footnotes, not the Bible Text.

Logos 9.3 Beta 3 on Windows 10

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Phil Gons (Logos)

This is by design. We've found over the years that most users don't understand nuances like searching vs. navigating and various field types. So several years ago we decided to support returning the Bible text when a user searches for a Bible reference such as John 3:16. The main search area, however, was empty. In an effort to provide something more useful, we decided to do a cross-reference search and return all the verses that refer to the reference. We think this will be helpful to average users and is superior to returning a mostly blank panel.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152502#Comment_1152502

however, was empty. In an effort to provide something more useful, we decided to do a cross-reference search and return all the verses that refer to the reference. We think this will be helpful to average users and is superior to returning a mostly blank panel.

I'm not asking for a change although I am not fond of the change. But I think you are making a very big mistake. Your search is under-utilized with people constantly complaining about the syntax. As I have documented the Bible search, I have come to the conclusion that the problem is not syntax, which is fairly straight forward. The problem is:

with the exception of Biblical entities, the search fields are spread over many search terms -- with no place to find a complete list
extensions such as section and milestone are returned inconsistently by the copy reference portion
documentation is spread over many resources, in different formats, and sometimes simply missing
some datatypes are documented but not usable by the end user adding to confusion
extensions such as section and milestone are returned inconsistently by the copy reference portion of the Context Menu
there is no documentation of which datatype can take extensions such as {Section} and {Milestone}
system built searches use abbreviations which are not documented
system built searches use quotation marks randomly
quirks have been added to make things "easier" making it more difficult to understand the rules - small caps, footnotes being the ones that immediately come to mind.

I would hope that FL apply common sense and

build a tool that gives the user one place to find all relevant search fields e.g. enter person and get datatype, field, Label attributes in one place at one time
have the tool provide access to the possible values (and their abbreviations) with a definition or link to the definition
have rules that are consistent in all instances - learn once, apply everywhere philosophy

The problem is the search terms not the syntax to string them together.

Armin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152505#Comment_1152505

After nearly two decades with Logos and numerous training courses/videos/wikis/...., searching is still the biggest challenge for me, even though I have an IT background.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152502#Comment_1152502

This is by design.

I think it is great to be able to search for Scripture references within a Bible search.Displaying results by verse is more useful in a Bible than by chapter.

The problem is that this makes searches inconsistent. You can search for a Bible reference in a footnote, but not other text within the footnote. For example, if I search for <Isaiah 53> in a Bible search, I will find a cross references in a footnote.But I cannot search for any other text within the footnote, such as "Lit" (for a literal translation). To do this, I must do a Basic search and select the Footnote field. This makes sense, because I want to search a footnote, not the Bible text. But it does not make sense to search "All Bible Text" and find things that are not actually part of the Bible text. It is actually misleading and implies that the cross references in footnotes are sacred text. In order to really search only the Bible text, I must intentionally select the "Surface Text" field, which is what most users would assume they are doing when they search "All Bible Text."

I expect to see consistency in searches. If I want to search for a Bible cross reference, I should have the option of selecting fields, such as Footnote and/or Cross Reference from within the Bible text. Right now, those fields are not available for Bible searches. This would be very valuable, because it is far more useful for me to search for places where the NASB translators put in a footnote describing a literal translation ("Lit") and to display the results by Bible verse, rather than by chapter, as it would in a Basic search.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152605#Comment_1152605

But it does not make sense to search "All Bible Text" and find things that are not actually part of the Bible text. It is actually misleading and implies that the cross references in footnotes are sacred text. In order to really search only the Bible text, I must intentionally select the "Surface Text" field, which is what most users would assume they are doing when they search "All Bible Text."

I think this is a very valid point.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152502#Comment_1152502

So several years ago we decided to support returning the Bible text when a user searches for a Bible reference such as John 3:16. The main search area, however, was empty.

And I just discovered this anomaly in Logos 8 i.e. where the Bible text is returned in one's preferred bible in a separate section. This should be removed in the current implementation for cross-references (it confusingly shows milestones and gives results when the principal xref search returns none).

But realise that you have switched the emphasis from searching Bible text to searching Bibles. So FL should retain the consistency of specifying explicit fields for a search, and Bible text still has to be the default. The nuances of "Various field types" can be assisted by their presentation. For example, first list "Common" fields like Bible text, Surface text, Cross Reference, Footnote text, Heading text, Large text, Words of Christ. Then group others like Gloss text, Literal translation, Lexical value (Lemma text should be at the bottom as I could only find it in LHI, and I still don't know what it means).

Having to specify Cross Reference will make it clear that some bibles currently return zero results because they don't have a cross reference field e.g. NRSV, NIV84, LEB.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152505#Comment_1152505

I'm not asking for a change although I am not fond of the change. But I think you are making a very big mistake.

It would be a mistake to implement the change as is and not be cognizant of the implications for Bible Search and Search in general

Bible Search is now a search of Bibles rather than a search of Bible text.
Not specifying a Search field is inconsistent as it won't help users with syntax i.e. knowing the search field that is being used (some bibles return the same result from a footnote search).
Providing a milestone search on preferred bible in another section is confusing, and definitely won't help the user experience with Search.

I've indicated in my previous post how the last 2 points should be addressed.

Behind the scenes, is the Bible index being used or the Library index?

with the exception of Biblical entities, the search fields are spread over many search terms -- with no place to find a complete list

...

documentation is spread over many resources, in different formats, and sometimes simply missing

some datatypes are documented but not usable by the end user adding to confusion

...

there is no documentation of which datatype can take extensions such as {Section} and {Milestone}

system built searches use abbreviations which are not documented

As we know, a complete and accurate documentation is difficult to achieve e.g. help manual, dataset documentation, datatypes. I think Search menus should link the field description e.g. Cross Reference with its name i.e. crossreference and an explanation of what it does. A popup Help box is one way. The Context menu provides a way to construct a Search, but we often have to figure out if it did what we anticipated e.g from <LDGNT = Sentence> is all of Mt 1 a sentence and why is the first part of Mt 2 not highlighted? You have to realise that a Basic Search is more meaningful because the 25 verses of Mt 1 are really 52-59 sentences (depending on the bible). The Sentence is documented as "one or more clauses", but 'clause' is not defined. Then we find a Sentence type in the Context menu and run a search on {Section <Sentence = Declarative>}. It's pleasing to discover that the first 6 chapters of Matthew are Declarative with the same number of 'sentences' as LDGNT. But things begin to fall apart as Mt 13 has 63 Declaratives vs. 52 Sentences. Overall it is good to know that Matthew is mainly declarative sentences...

The datatypes that 'take' the Section extension are fairly clear as they are the ones that categorize/classify sections of text. But FL has not been consistent in their implementation, so {Section <LDGNT = Sentence>} will give the same results as <LDGNT = Sentence>. Person, Place, Thing, identify a word or phrase that usually re-occur in the text (or have referents), so they don't take extensions. Sense is similar to Lemma, Louw-Nida, Greek Strong's Numbers, etc that are assigned to individual original-language words.

Extensions like Label, Milestone, Addressee, Speaker seem more 'functional' so their parameters need to be documented, and not all use datatypes.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152782#Comment_1152782

1. Bible Search is now a search of Bibles rather than a search of Bible text.

Yet, by default the search says "Search All Bible Text." This is both confusing to the user and inconsistent with other searches.

2. Not specifying a Search field is inconsistent as it won't help users with syntax i.e. knowing the search field that is being used (some bibles return the same result from a footnote search).

I agree. So many of the fields that are available in Basic searches on a Bible are not available in Bible searches. It makes no sense to include this one data type (cross reference) within the footnote text.

I think the solution that would be consistent and clear is to make Search All Bible Text actually search only the text of the Bible and also to enable all of the search fields that are available in the Bible within the Bible search. The a cross reference search could be done within a Bible search if desired.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152785#Comment_1152785

2. Not specifying a Search field is inconsistent as it won't help users with syntax i.e. knowing the search field that is being used (some bibles return the same result from a footnote search).

I agree. So many of the fields that are available in Basic searches on a Bible are not available in Bible searches. It makes no sense to include this one data type (cross reference) within the footnote text.

Just to clarify, some bibles with Cross Reference also get the same result with Footnote.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152870#Comment_1152870

some bibles with Cross Reference also get the same result with Footnote.

Is this because they are searching the Footnote text as plain text rather than as a Scripture reference data type? That is what I would expect if I chose the Footnote text search field.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152879#Comment_1152879

In Basic Search, try the search term <Ps 2> with the Cross Reference field and then the Footnote Text field in NASB95, HCSB, ESV. You will get different results with NABRE, NIV 2011 and CSB. But any Cross Reference result will agree with the result in Bible Search.

The field description does not preclude finding formatted bible references in other fields e.g. Heading Text, Translator's Note.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152782#Comment_1152782

3. Providing a milestone search on preferred bible in another section is confusing, and definitely won't help the user experience with Search.

We disagree.

If you know what the words "milestone search" means, then I can see how this result "doesn't make sense".

But 99.5% of users have no idea what that phrase means. Instead, they open their Bible software, they open Bible Search, and they type a Bible verse in. (We have telemetry on this.) It seemed very silly to us that it would return a completely blank search results page. So we added the preferred Bible section at the top to show what they might be looking for. (This has been there since Logos 8.7 IIRC.)

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152782#Comment_1152782

Behind the scenes, is the Bible index being used or the Library index?

Almost always the Library Index. (The BibleIndex is vestigial and we should delete it.)

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152782#Comment_1152782

As we know, a complete and accurate documentation is difficult to achieve e.g. help manual, dataset documentation, datatypes.

Programming Logos/Verbum's search capabilities from scratch was, I am sure, difficult to achieve. It was also worth it.

By comparison, properly documenting the Search functions of Logos/Verbum is easy, and it really ought to be done.

Once it's been done, continuously maintaining it will be a lot less challenging.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1153172#Comment_1153172

By comparison, properly documenting the Search functions of Logos/Verbum is easy, and it really ought to be done.

I don't know if it really is easy - in fact, MJ is doing it from a user's perspective right now in her posts and it looks like an awful amount of very diligent work.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1153172#Comment_1153172

properly documenting the Search functions of Logos/Verbum

This is absolutely critical if users are to use the software effectively and get accurate results.

The Help manual in Logos has improved greatly over the years. There are still some things that are not documented in detail, but these are usually in the Wiki. But the in-program documentation is far beyond what it used to be.

But it is frustrating when a user goes to the trouble to figure out the search options and then a search does not return what the documentation says it should do.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1153110#Comment_1153110

But 99.5% of users have no idea what that phrase means. Instead, they open their Bible software, they open Bible Search, and they type a Bible verse in.

Then please make the section optional or don't run it when collapsed for the .5% of us that are annoyed by it.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1153111#Comment_1153111

(The BibleIndex is vestigial and we should delete it.)

I'm sure that the reduced indexing time would be welcomed by many users.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1154538#Comment_1154538

please make the section optional or don't run it when collapsed

I agree. The search should not be run in a resource with a closed facet.