Pretty please fix my pet peeve ... it's not a pet I like

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533943#Comment_533943

Agree for sure on study Bibles; that's a user assumption since for example JSB is sold with Tanakh. But commentaries?

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533968#Comment_533968

[Y]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533968#Comment_533968

Agree for sure on study Bibles; that's a user assumption since for example JSB is sold with Tanakh. But commentaries?

As you can see from below it is not sold with it as most study notes are notes only… Some commentaries are definitely based on certain translations.

Overview

The Jewish Study Bible is a one-volume resource tailored to the needs of students of the Hebrew Bible. Nearly 40 scholars worldwide, representing the best of today’s Jewish biblical scholarship, contributed to the Jewish Study Bible’s translation and interpretation. A committee of highly respected biblical scholars and rabbis from the orthodox, conservative, and Reform Judaism movements produced this modern translation.

No knowledge of Hebrew is required to make use of this unique volume. The Jewish Study Bible uses the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH translation. Since its publication, the Jewish Study Bible has become one of the most popular volumes in Oxford’s celebrated line of bibles.

The Jewish Study Bible is now available in a state-of-the-art digital edition using the power of Logos Bible Software. This is an easy-to-use tool that helps make Bible study more fruitful than ever. The quality of scholarship, easy-to-navigate format, and vibrant supplementary features bring the ancient text to life.

This resource does not include the Bible texts. The TANAKH is available separately and can be purchased here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534062#Comment_534062

This should be easy to program, and makes a lot of sense.

[Y] [Y] [Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534062#Comment_534062

Dan ... to clarify, I was referring to what you'd see outside Logos .... the paper version of JSB includes the Tanakh with additional notes. That said, however, Olivetree sells the JSB separately also (which I have).

Forcing a specific translation with more in-depth commentaries is a different issue. I don't see that as viable. KJV vs NRSV vs ESV vs a Vulgate varient?

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534063#Comment_534063

I don't like this idea. If I need to do something like this I use the "Send Hyperlinks Here" option.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534065#Comment_534065

The idea makes sense.

Some commentators may be making a particular point about the advantage/disadvantage of a particular translation, or they are drawing specific points from a translation. In this case, "forcing" a translation on hover or click (with user option to override) makes a lot of sense.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534068#Comment_534068

As much as I might appreciate Liberty's comments on various passages, the KJV does me no favors. I like Josh's solution for commentaries. For study-Bibles, it'd be a marketing problem (some come with multiple version choices and then quote appropriately).

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534064#Comment_534064

Dan ... to clarify, I was referring to what you'd see outside Logos .... the paper version of JSB includes the Tanakh with additional notes. That said, however, Olivetree sells the JSB separately also (which I have).

Forcing a specific translation with more in-depth commentaries is a different issue. I don't see that as viable. KJV vs NRSV vs ESV vs a Vulgate varient?

Sorry for my misunderstanding… I do not see it as a needed thing myself. But if a commentary or a study note asks you to reference a different translation or another verse in a specific translation it would be more convenient to have it do that… I haven't minded opening up and manually switching myself but would agree that it would be nice if Logos was smart enough to do that...

-Dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534070#Comment_534070

As much as I might appreciate Liberty's comments on various passages, the KJV does me no favors.

[Y]

BTW I see Zondervan has released a new version (same editors, but quality seems less to me)…. At least Nelson had only renamed it the KJV Parallel commentary….

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534083#Comment_534083

Forcing a specific translation with more in-depth commentaries is a different issue. I don't see that as viable. KJV vs NRSV vs ESV vs a Vulgate varient?

I already do so through advanced priorities for those commentaries which state the translatiion they use - primarily true of devotional commentaries or those using some form of reader-response, literary, rhetorical criticism. However, there is a hidden agenda in this request - those commentaries that are using their own translation. One has to use two panes - one for the translation and one for the commentary as it works now. And one can't request the translation in text comparison as one can other translations.

But, yes, the option of using your highest priority Bible does need to be preserved,

tom

With the new study Bibles, I am yet again reminded that on mouse over, they do not display the text being commented on (rather they show my default Bible) ... rather I have to go into prioritization and create yet another record in a very long and unmanageable list. PLEASE add the translation on which the notes are based to the metadata and make it the default for mouse over (with the ability to retain current behavior if wanted). Note that this implies that the translation upon which the study bible is based is available in Logos.

Two related requests/peeves:

Make commentaries display base text in the same way as requested above for study Bibles

Make references within resources that specifically state the translation, display the translation cited e.g. "Gen 1:1" displays my default Bible (currently NRSV) while "Gen 1:1 NIV" displays the NIV regardless of my default

Note this is not a problem with my dead-tree books so it is useability lost in going to Logos editions ...

[Y] do like this idea

David Ames

Displaying the 'corrupted' version of the Bible that the author used and also displaying the 'one and only correct' version that 'I' prefer will show why that 'study' Bible or commentary is not giving the 'correct interpretation' of the 'original' text. [but then some authors use every possible version within one book]

I just did a 'GO' on a verse in Revelation. Got about 100 commentary hits. [mixture of study Bibles and 'normal'commentaries] Knowing what version of the Bible that the author used 'might' have clarified why they gave me conflicting answers.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534063#Comment_534063

This should be easy to program, and makes a lot of sense.

Yes to the second part of your comment, but not the first.

Right now any Bible reference in a text pops-up the default Bible. Making that resource specific would likely require some major reworking of the program and perhaps all the resources (internal, version-specific tagging for each reference?).

What I wonder about as a way to do the same thing without a total rewrite of how Logos works with particular resources (requiring further data tagging for all those resources(?), as well as ???), is to (optionally) pop up the text from a linked Bible. Now this gets complicated when there is more than one Bible linked, and the trapping routine will need to take that into account (highest prioritized linked Bible?). But it wouldn't be too difficult from a user perspective to link a KJV study Bible with the KJV, (e.g.) and get the expected results.

I do agree that when a passage is explicitly cited from a particular translation, that translation should pop up. I believe that this does work as expected in some resources, doesn't it? (I may be off on this, and I don't have any specific resource I'm thinking of that works this way.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534145#Comment_534145

I could be (really, really) wrong, but I thought some resources are already 'hard-coded' to their popups? But I still think, absent a study Bible, that the linkage could be dicey on the programming side. Quite a number of my commentaries bounce around on which translation they're illustrating with. The UBS Handbook quickly comes to mind.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534145#Comment_534145

Yes to the second part of your comment, but not the first.

I can see a way of making it reasonably easy to program. All it would need is for users to be able to specify a preferred Bible version for each resource. This could be set on the information panel screen, perhaps (or in the information panel in the library). By default, all resources would be set to (Default Bible). All Logos would need to do would be to check whether that selection had been made, before checking the keylinking.

That said, we can do all this already via advanced prioritisation. I am not convinced that creating an additional feature, that achieves the same purpose is a good idea. It could quickly get confusing, and we'd have to check in two places why things weren't working as expected.

Consequently, I'd rather Logos attacked the underlying problem - that prioritization hasn't scaled well, and needs some attention for power users.

(What's fascinating from my perspective is that I thought L3's keylinking settings far too complicated, and didn't really use them. So I used to love L4's prioritising, which is essentially a simpler version of the same feature. But as time as gone one, I've outgrown prioritization, and would now like something much more similar to L3's version.)

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534150#Comment_534150

(What's fascinating from my perspective is that I thought L3's keylinking settings far too complicated, and didn't really use them. So I used to love L4's prioritising, which is essentially a simpler version of the same feature. But as time as gone one, I've outgrown prioritization, and would now like something much more similar to L3's version.)

That settles it...TIME TO BRING L3 BACK TO LIFE!!!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534150#Comment_534150

I agree that prioritization is the simplest answer. Right click and choose the 1st, 2nd, 3rd … (up to 5?).

Floyd Johnson

With the new study Bibles, I am yet again reminded that on mouse over, they do not display the text being commented on (rather they show my default Bible) ... rather I have to go into prioritization and create yet another record in a very long and unmanageable list. PLEASE add the translation on which the notes are based to the metadata and make it the default for mouse over (with the ability to retain current behavior if wanted). Note that this implies that the translation upon which the study bible is based is available in Logos.

Two related requests/peeves:

Make commentaries display base text in the same way as requested above for study Bibles

Make references within resources that specifically state the translation, display the translation cited e.g. "Gen 1:1" displays my default Bible (currently NRSV) while "Gen 1:1 NIV" displays the NIV regardless of my default

Note this is not a problem with my dead-tree books so it is useability lost in going to Logos editions ...

Given that some commentaries use multiple translations, point 3 above makes even more sense. More problematic is when a commentary author chooses to write (rewrite?) his or her own translation of the text to use with the commentary. This will (I would think) require having two unsynced windows open to the commentary resource.

MJ I give this suggestion [Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

fgh

[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

I'm having a hard time understanding why this suggestion has raised so many objections, and especially Richard's claim that it "would likely require some major reworking of the program and perhaps all the resources". How can that be when we already have books that do this just fine? The Summa Theologica comes to mind:

The linked quote is shown both in the hard-linked version, and in the prioritized version. Everyone happy.[:)]

Since they clearly had the skills to program this into the 2009 Summa, I'm pretty sure they have the skills to do so now as well.[:)] We just need to convince them to. Of course, two improvements would be very welcome:

I usually can't see the lower quote, because I use a large font size and the popup isn't resizable. That needs to change.
Suppressing the lower quote when it's the same as the upper would prevent some confusion and unnecessary bug reports.

Agree for sure on study Bibles; that's a user assumption since for example JSB is sold with Tanakh. But commentaries?

You've never seen a printed commentary that includes the text it's commenting on?[:O] Isn't that pretty normal? And although some commentaries aren't explicitly tied to a particular Bible version, some very much are. The Jewish New Testament Commentary comes to mind. And I presume there's a reason the NIV Commentaries have 'NIV' in the name?

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534185#Comment_534185

I'm having a hard time understanding why this suggestion has raised so many objections, and especially Richard's claim that it "would likely require some major reworking of the program and perhaps all the resources"

First, I'm not objecting to this idea. I do object to the idea that making this change is simple.

I really don't know how all these resources work, and how Logos interacts with them. It does seem to me that there is a default for Bible passages that, once tagged as Bible passages, will display that passage in one's preferred version on hover. It also seems to me that changing that behavior to be resource specific means tagging those passages, like the others have been tagged.

Yes there are resources that already have this kind of tagging, but that's not the same as handling default behavior.

Now, I'm not a programmer. I don't know the inner workings of how these things are actually handled. However, I have dabbled in programing, and understand a bit about the difference between a default action and a non-default action. Handling all the possibilities for non-default actions re Bible versions, requires individually tagging each instance, or creating sub-routines or modules that sniff out all the [known] possibilities and returns the correct one each time. That's a lot of work. I don't think it's as simple as we users might suspect.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I thought I said that I would like it to be done. I just t think it would not be simple to do. I also suggested a potentially simpler way of accomplishing the same goal. But not knowing the internals of Logos, I have no idea what would be the best way to accomplish the user experience goal here.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534185#Comment_534185

The issue is...what's the point of me prioritizing my preferred Bible version if certain resources will undermine my prioritization. What is being suggested here should NOT be default. However, this brings you back to where MJ is. Setting advanced prioritizations for specific resources. I'm not sure if there is a good solution to this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534185#Comment_534185

The linked quote is shown both in the hard-linked version, and in the prioritized version. Everyone happy.

Enough said! [:D]

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534202#Comment_534202

Enough said!

Having two source texts pop-up takes up...wait for it...twice the room. As mentioned by fgh this sometimes causes issues. Hovering over "Mark 1:1-15" would give you a massive pop-up that most likely will not even have all of the first text shown. The point of a pop-up is to be small and quick - not bulky. This would limit the usefulness of the pop-ups. Also, which translation would get the better seat on top?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534206#Comment_534206

If you don't like it, override it / leave the option off (depending on implementation).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534145#Comment_534145

Making that resource specific would likely require some major reworking of the program and perhaps all the resources (internal, version-specific tagging for each reference?).

I was actually thinking along the lines of the specific version, if there is one, being a piece of metadata. An option in Settings or Priorities would simply direct the system to use either the resource's preferred Bible or the user's preferred Bible.

(I may be off on this, and I don't have any specific resource I'm thinking of that works this way.)

If it does already, which at one time I thought L4 intended to do, it does not do so consistently or, so far as I can tell, predictably. I occasionally see a version attached to a reference in a selection box but again have not recognized a pattern. But it does tell me that at least

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534145#Comment_534145

Making that resource specific would likely require some major reworking of the program and perhaps all the resources (internal, version-specific tagging for each reference?).

(I may be off on this, and I don't have any specific resource I'm thinking of that works this way.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534150#Comment_534150

That said, we can do all this already via advanced prioritisation.

We can ... and for the most important I have done so. But with the current unstructured prioritization it is very slow to get done. If the information was metadata and the prioritization a simple "use metadata" that would be a big step forward. However, that leaves the problem of commentaries that have their own internal translation.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/534195#Comment_534195

What is being suggested here should NOT be default

I agree that the current behavior needs to be preserved as an option. I don't know enough about the user base to know what default best meets expectations of someone using Logos "right out of the box".