Bob Pritchett: please prioritize QUALITY over QUANTITY

Page 2 of 4 (78 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 77 Replies | 9 Followers

Posts 12076
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 4:07 AM

Francis:

why are entries that are tagged with headwords (such as Sifra in JE that shows up in PL) not "hit" when searching heading title, heading text, title or large text? I would tend to think that the bolded Sifra at the end of the corresponding entry in JE is a heading title, a title and large text, no?

I'n not sure about heading title (and I don't have the resource to check), but from your screenshot it looks like it's not a large text but just formatted in All-Caps and Bold. Even if the resource info page says that a resource exposes Large text, this may be only the heading page or large A, B, C characters used as entry to sections. Headwords work as large text only when they are formatted in a larger font than the rest. And I don't think that headwords are ever formatted as title - maybe some picture captions do, and maybe some titles of articles in journals. 

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 1875
Alan Macgregor | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 4:09 AM

Of the making of links there is no end. Smile cf. Ecclesiastes 12:12

Every blessing

Alan

iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8

MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8

iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1

iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 4:21 AM

Headings are defined in the resource information panel of the resources that have them as "The text of book, chapter and pericope headings". This means that it is found in Bibles and other works that have titles as for instance, Josephus' writings.

Large text is very illuminatingly described as "large text" :)

Both of these are search fields. 

Headwords, however, are listed as indexes, not search fields. For instance, JE lists in its indexes Hebrew headwords, Transliterated headwords and English headwords. 

So much for the difference between headwords and headings and why searching the latter does not bring up the former. 

But I am not sure I understand why the two are distinguishable nor the difference, really, between indexes and search fields (although I assume that headwords are part of the annoying indexing process whereas headings are not). And, why, since headwords are indexed, can't they be also search fields?

Finally, again, with all the GRATITUDE I have for the power of Logos, how in the world is the average user to think that searching headings would not produce titles or headwords?

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 5:14 AM

Francis:
There is one question that (I don't think) is elucidated by your explanation: why are entries that are tagged with headwords (such as Sifra in JE that shows up in PL) not "hit" when searching heading title, heading text, title or large text? I would tend to think that the bolded Sifra at the end of the corresponding entry in JE is a heading title, a title and large text, no?

I can explain the technical stuff, but not necessarily the editorial decisions.

If you look at the information panel of the Jewish Encylopaedia, you'll get a description of all the search fields (see below).

You'll see that it doesn't support the Heading Text or Heading Title fields. (Heading Title is a typo, by the way. It's only used in one resource that Logos didn't create. Heading Text is the official heading field). You'll also see that Title refers to the title of an object, not the heading of an article.

In other words, like many resources, the JE doesn't specifically tag headings. As to why the decision was made to create the JE without that tagging, I'm afraid I'm as much in the dark as you are.

But Logos know that many resources (particularly older ones) don't have the Heading Text field, which is why they introduced the Large Text field. This is automatically applied by the indexer to text over a certain size, and doesn't require tagging. It's a workaround for resources without heading tagging, and usually works OK. In this case though, the headings in the JE are too small to qualify.

It's rare that this type of search doesn't find results. Usually the problem is false positives. And it's even rarer that a combination of all three steps would fail to find it (and in this case, step 2 would have got it).

(By the way, if you're wondering how I know all this, it's because I asked all the exact same questions back in 2009-2010 shortly after LCV was introduced!)

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 6:11 AM

Mark Barnes:
By the way, if you're wondering how I know all this, it's because I asked all the exact same questions back in 2009-2010 shortly after LCV was introduced!

And I had thought you were doing a PhD in Logossology! Big Smile

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 6:13 AM

Francis:
But I am not sure I understand why the two are distinguishable nor the difference, really, between indexes and search fields (although I assume that headwords are part of the annoying indexing process whereas headings are not). And, why, since headwords are indexed, can't they be also search fields?

Here's the technical explanation.

Logos has two types of indexes.

  • The first is the one we normally think of as the index, and it comes in three flavours: library index, Bible index, and personal book index. They're stored on disk in the Data/Random folder.
  • The second index comes in two flavours: datatype and headword. They're stored on disk as .mstidx files, in the Data/Random/ResourceManager/logos folder. 

The first index indexes the content of resources, including what you can see (the ordinary text), what you can sometimes see (interlinear data, footnote popups), and even what you can't see (labels). Fields are part of this first index. This first index is used primarily by the search tool.

The second index indexes milestones and headwords. Milestones and headwords are visible in the right-click menu, and in the reference box within resources. When you click on a reference to John 3:16, and your Bible jumps to that passage, it's using this second index to know where to go. Likewise, the power lookup tool and parallel resource menus use this index to know which dictionaries have an article on any particular topic.

The distinction between these two indexes is the distinction between searching content (first index), and looking up references (second index). The first index is analogous to a concordance or the index of a monograph. The second index is analogous to a table of contents in a dictionary. In other words, the first index will likely return many results from a single resource, from dozens of pages/chapters. The second index will find one article in each resource that matches.

In Logos 4 and Logos 5, the two indexes were kept quite distinct. Search used the first, look up used the second. You couldn't search for milestones or headwords, you could only look them up. In Logos 6, the search tool is now able to search for milestones, although it can't yet search for headwords. Hopefully that's coming.

PS - to add to the confusion, what the resource information panel calls indexes are the data elements for that resource that are in the second (.mstidx) index . It has nothing to do with searching (which is what we normally associated the index with).

Posts 1993
Donnie Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 6:47 AM

Mark Barnes:

My step-by-step advice essentially boiled down to:

  1. First, use an LCV tool (Factbook or Topic Guide).
  2. Second, use a headword tool (Power Lookup, or the Look Up command)
  3. Third, use a search tool (heading/large text)

Between those three methods, you've covered everything. And once you've found one result, you can use the parallel resource menu, or + tab (which uses headwords).

Mark,

I'm betting there's not a way to create a custom guide that includes those 3 search / lookup approaches? That would be seem to be a reasonable solution given the incomplete nature of any 1 approach.

Thanks for the explanation. This is another "Post to wiki" forum thread. (See https://community.logos.com/forums/p/94264/654886.aspx#654886)

Donnie

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 7:20 AM

Donnie Hale:
I'm betting there's not a way to create a custom guide that includes those 3 search / lookup approaches? That would be seem to be a reasonable solution given the incomplete nature of any 1 approach.

There isn't a way. And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.

Posts 1130
Keith Larson | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 8:30 AM

Mark,

Thanks for your very helpful and detailed explanations. You are truly a blessing to the whole Logos community.

Posts 3073
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 8:41 AM

Mark Barnes:
In an ideal world, every dictionary would have LCV tagging. But that takes time, and will likely never happen

Two words, Mark:  Cloud Tagging

By the way, your response was outstanding in terms of helpfulness.  A Vulcan mind-meld would be ideal, at this point.

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 8:50 AM

Doc B:
Two words, Mark:  Cloud Tagging

That's beginning to be possible with community tags (although they're for content, not milestones). If that experiment goes well...

Posts 217
LogosEmployee
Jannie van Niekerk | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 8:59 AM

Thank you Francis for the report.

I have made note of the issues and will flag this resource for an update.

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 12 2014 9:13 AM

Thank you, Jannie.

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 12:48 AM

Mark Barnes:
And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.

I am not sure I agree with you on this, Mark.

Instead of adding a "search everything" link which, in my opinion, is really nothing new (I don't see any difference from the already existing basic search searching all resources in the library), it would be more needed and useful to have something of the thematic kind (if we must find a different term than "topic" considering how it is already being used in Logos).

I can understand why Logos chose to distinguish between Topics, Factbook type of entries and headwords in order to facilitate correspondingly specialized tools, but instead of a Topic Guide, it would be much better to have a Thematic Guide and/or Thematic Search that presented the results of the query in the three pertinent categories: TG, FB and Lookup. Since the tools and the data they use are already in place, what we need is a report or search feature that brings the three together (where hits are organized according to their respective categories and not blended together. For instance, Sifra would produce: Topic Guide: 0 hits; Factbook: 0 hits; Lookup: 1 hit). A further advantage of such this Thematic Guide or Thematic Search would be that suggestions, when one types, could draw from all three sources (topical entries, persons, places, events, headwords). Perhaps a Personal Books section could be added as well while we are it (drawing on the newly implemented ability to search Milestones).

I don't think that it would be a step backward and it would certainly not require nor circumvent the need to keep on work on tagging and LCV. Moreover, such a tool would be consistent with what other guides are doing, which is to bring together search results from different categories (that could otherwise be searched separately). In fact the more I think of it, the more I think that this is PRECISELY what Logos should do. 

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 1:21 AM

A different, yet relevant, aspect of the plea for prioritizing quality over quantity is found here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/92419/643915.aspx#643915

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 2:11 AM

One could add as well, that generally, Logos seems to cater more to a general rather than academic public. Here are a couple illustrations:

The help file is awfully inadequate for the kind of things academics want to do:

Yesterday, I wanted to know how to find places in the LXX where the Hebrew אוֹ is translated by καί. I looked in the search fields for ideas. I saw glosses in there. Possibly, I thought. But how to I use it, I mean, beside checking the box, what would be the corresponding syntax of the search. So I go to the help file and search for it. I only get a glossary definition of the field: "In a dictionary of lexicon, a brief explanation or definition of a word or phrase" no explanation on how to use it.

Today, I discovered that an example for Gloss is actually provided in the search window. I did not think of looking there because I know that not all search fields are documented there and that it tends to me more general stuff that is in there. However, why is it not also in the help file? And then there are those references to wikis. Forums and wikis are nice, but that's not a great solution for professional use. Once again, as in the case of Topic Guide, Factbook, Lookup, there are way too many sources and information is scattered. Finding what one needs is hit and miss or involves have to explore too many options. 

This morning, I have "wasted" about 2 hours of my much needed time, posting questions, reporting data errors and bringing attention to issues as here. I do learn much in the end, but it is a long and unnecessarily long, time-wasting process. Information must be consolidated. 

The same can be said about videos. They are nice as entry points but generally seem to be more catered to pastors and the general public than academics. 

Lastly, the Logos Academic page needs to be much more oriented toward education than marketing as is currently the case. When I am going there, I see mainly eye-catching ads and basic advertisement of some features not a streamlined, well-designed gateway point into specialized use of Logos for scholarly work. As it is, its prominent goal is to get academics to buy Logos base packages.

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 3:15 AM

Francis:

Mark Barnes:
And I'm pretty sure that Logos would consider adding the capability as a step back, not a step forward. In other words, they'd rather improve the tagging so it's not necessary, than add the capability you suggest.

I am not sure I agree with you on this, Mark.

I didn't say I think it's a step back. I said that I think Logos think that.

I said so because I think that the topic section of the topic guide used to include dictionaries without LCV tagging, and this was removed once the LCV became reasonably comprehensive. By comparison, the Topic section of the Bible Word Study has this ability (although only for words that are in the Bible).

Francis:
Instead of adding a "search everything" link which, in my opinion, is really nothing new (I don't see any difference from the already existing basic search searching all resources in the library)

Search Everything combines Basic, Bible and Media searches into one search, and adds entity search (the Factbook). I don't use it, but I can see why some people - especially with smaller libraries - would find it useful to have everything in one place.

Francis:
I can understand why Logos chose to distinguish between Topics, Factbook type of entries and headwords in order to facilitate correspondingly specialized tools, but instead of a Topic Guide, it would be much better to have a Thematic Guide and/or Thematic Search that presented the results of the query in the three pertinent categories: TG, FB and Lookup. Since the tools and the data they use are already in place, what we need is a report or search feature that brings the three together (where hits are organized according to their respective categories and not blended together. For instance, Sifra would produce: Topic Guide: 0 hits; Factbook: 0 hits; Lookup: 1 hit). A further advantage of such this Thematic Guide or Thematic Search would be that suggestions, when one types, could draw from all three sources (topical entries, persons, places, events, headwords). Perhaps a Personal Books section could be added as well while we are it (drawing on the newly implemented ability to search Milestones).

That's pretty much what Factbook is for. If you look carefully you'll notice that they layout of Factbook changes slightly depending on whether you're viewing a Topic, Theme, Person, Place, Thing or Event. Each type has different sections, and if something exists in multiple datasets (e.g. as a Topic and as a Place), then the Factbook will show data from both sections.

The only significant difference is that you're asking for the Factbook to be enabled for topics that aren't LCV enabled, and to include results from dictionaries that aren't LCV enabled. That's your core 'complaint', and if that was the case, I think you'd be very happy with the way Logos is developing.

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 3:20 AM

Francis:
One could add as well, that generally, Logos seems to cater more to a general rather than academic public.

Many members of the general public see it the other way round (Logos is too complex; Logos has lots of tools I don't need).

Francis:
The help file is awfully inadequate for the kind of things academics want to do

The help file is just inadequate period. It's not just a problem for academics

Training is obviously an area I have an interest in. I know Logos is working on improving it, and I think you'll see some improvements in the near future. (Although you'll probably feel it won't go far enough, as I think I will. I'd like to see a detailed MEd course, included in Base Packages, that provides this type of training.) 

Posts 3771
Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 3:34 AM

Mark Barnes:
I'd like to see a detailed MEd course, included in Base Packages

Indeed: having to purchases courses or Morris Proctor materials in order to get documentation on how to use a software that we already paid for and that is inappropriately documented is not right.

I am curious about the upcoming stuff you are alluding to. I know that Logos is working on stuff. Hopefully, what I write is not perceived as whipping Logos. I am pointing out what seems problems for me in order to advocate improvements and perhaps contribute to getting attention on these issues. There are things I don't know (what is being developed but is not publicly known) or features in the software that are not evidently/sufficiently documented (and sometimes, things I am simply ignorant of). 

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 13 2014 3:42 AM

Francis:
Hopefully, what I write is not perceived as whipping Logos.

No, not at all. We all want a better product. Thankfully Logos wants that even more than we do!

Francis:
I am curious about the upcoming stuff you are alluding to.

I don't know a huge amount. I do know that there are now staff who are specifically focussing on training, which wasn't really the case before, and that the mini-tutorials will expand significantly over the next few months.

Page 2 of 4 (78 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS