Logos Lacks Lots of Links

Most of these questions have been discussed before, so I'm able to give you the answers that have been given before:

Sean said:

• Is there a plan to improve the links in existing resources (especially theology books)?

• What’s a reasonable amount of time to wait for this to happen for a particular book?

Logos pointedly make no promises to improve the tagging in older resources, on the basis that would raise costs beyond a sustainable level. When a new resources is added, they say that it should link, where appropriate, to all existing resources, but that they simply can't afford to check the 15-20,000 resources already available to see if they should link to the new resource.

So the answer to your first question is 'no'. (That said, they have in the past made very occasional exceptions for a handful of flagship resources such as AYBD. And, new tagging types [e.g. journals and sermons] have been extensively added to old resources quite recently.)

Sean said:

Will new releases have better tagging than some of these older ones? Will it ever be the case that links automatically become “live” after a previously unavailable cited resource is produced and acquired?

As I said, books should link to all existing books, so that means new books will have more links to old books. There are also some new tagging types in some resources (journals and sermons being the most obvious), which should be supported fully in new resources.

Sean said:

Will it ever be the case that links automatically become “live” after a previously unavailable cited resource is produced and acquired?

A new resource is tagged is to resources previously released, and resources in the pipeline, so you may find that resource links start working afterwards for books that were almost ready when the first was released.

In addition, there's a bibliographic datatype that's added to the bibliographies (not the main text) of new resources. This is is a little popup that gives bibliographic data, which you can copy to the clipboard. But there's also a web service attached to that popup, which asks Logos webserver whether than book exists in Logos format. If the server says 'yes', the resource should be added to the popup. (It's been perpetually broken though.) So, there's the intention that not-yet-made (and not-yet-planned) resources will be linked to via this means, although that will only be a link to the resource, not to the exact location, and only from the bibliography, not the main text.

Sean said:

Is there anything that users can do to help this process?

I'm not sure there is at the moment. I wonder whether the new Community Tags idea might be extended in the future to allow users to add these links, and for them to be shared with others. (I'm hopeful that might happen one day, even though Logos have never commented to that effect.)

If users could create the hyperlink and then send it to Logos for approval it would make the task much easier for Faithlife Corp.

Just an idea that I am pretty sure I have already seen on the forums in the past

Francis said:

Will be the addition of new links (if applicable) take place automatically (added code that takes effect in the whole resource and others to which it applies) or would each applicable resource need a more extensive, individual, re-tagging by logos staff?

Logos have internal tools that make tagging easier, but they still require a human editor to operate the tools. The tools will no doubt improve over time, but I don't we'll ever be in a situation where the human is eliminated altogether.

In both older and newer resources, links are great friends. It is worth putting a percentage of time into building / fixing links - IMHO. Logos is strengthened by the interconnectivity of resources. The ability to hoover over a link (for a quick synopsis) helps us to determine whether we want to bother trying to track it down at all. That is the time-saving power of Logos and it is one of the substantial reasons that many of us invest so heavily in our Libraries. Links broaden our perspectives, grant us additional insights and help us to serve HIM better.

Are all links created equal? Probably not, but the "missed opportunity to have a link makes the heart sick; but when it connects ... it is a tree of life". [Did I say that right?] [H]

I agree Ron

Mark Barnes said:

Logos pointedly make no promises to improve the tagging in older resources, on the basis that would raise costs beyond a sustainable level.

This is what really gets me. Half the value proposition of Logos is resource linking within a large library. (The other half is searching/collections.) If the links aren't there then I'm not getting the functionality I paid extra for over a normal e-book.

If a resource references something that isn't yet in the Logos catalog it should be coded with a non-activated link that Logos can activate at a later date if the linked resource does come along.

If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?

Randy W. Sims said:I would like to understand the technical issue. Why can't all references be linked when the resource if first created whether there is an existing resource to link to or not such that the link becomes active when the resource is available?

Dave Moser said:

If a resource references something that isn't yet in the Logos catalog it should be coded with a non-activated link that Logos can activate at a later date if the linked resource does come along.

Undoubtedly that could be done for many resources. There would obviously be quite a lot of work involved, and that would no doubt increase costs and slow production. If that's a price we and Logos are willing to pay, then I guess there's nothing preventing it from happening. Another advantage would be that it would show Logos which resources would be most valuable to add (i.e. have most links to them).

That said, there would be a number of hurdles to overcome (this is off the top of my head, I'm sure Logos employees could add more hurdles):

1. You'd need to design, create and maintain a database of all these possible resources.
2. Because none of us would want dead links that don't go anywhere, you'd need to add code to Logos that hid those links until the resource was available. (The alternative is to rebuild existing resources whenever a new resource is released, but that wouldn't be popular.) That would involve:
1. A server component that would provide our desktop applications with a list of released resources.
2. A client component that lock/unlock those links, as appropriate. This would need to be developed on PC, Mac, Android and iOS. Hiding/showing those links on the fly, without slowing down display, would be quite a challenge IMO, particularly on mobile platforms.
3. And, of course, you've got to tag those links in the new resources you're creating - possibly doubling(?) the time it takes to create the resource.

In addition to all this work, you'd have additional issues when you were linking to resources that didn't use standard page numbers, and required their own datatype. (Resources like ANET, COS, Louw-Nida, DSS, etc.). These datatypes have to be designed quite specifically for these resources, which takes some time, and requires a thorough review of the entire work. So in these cases, Logos would have to procure the resource, and spend many dozens of hours creating and testing a specification for the datatype, before any links could be created.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love it if all possible links were linked. But I don't think there are any easy answers to the problem.

Sean said:

Mark Barnes said:

Sean said:

Yes. Logos should have tools for automating much of this and hitting a good percentage of some of the more important works. For example, most books use a fairly standardized format for citing Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics; I would think a clever macro could hit 80%+ of the unlinked references with little human supervision.

They do all this already (using tools they've built for the process). But it's the 20% of the links that require 80% of the work.

No, some of the examples I've provided, and others that could be cited, show that this is not uniformly the case.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that when they add links, they use custom-built tools to make that process easier. I'm not saying that every link that could be 'automatically' tagged has been tagged.

I guess, in theory, it would be possible to add automated links to resources that were right 80% of the time (like Vyrso resources). But I suspect that would simply give Logos a reputation for bad tagging, rather than partial tagging, and there'd be just as many complaints - if not more. "This author is citing from the Damascus Document [CD 1:1], and Logos has linked it to Barth's Church Dogmatics! That's not what I pay good money for!!!!"

Dave Moser said:

This is what really gets me. Half the value proposition of Logos is resource linking within a large library. (The other half is searching/collections.) If the links aren't there then I'm not getting the functionality I paid extra for over a normal e-book.

If a resource references something that isn't yet in the Logos catalog it should be coded with a non-activated link that Logos can activate at a later date if the linked resource does come along.

If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?

I feel your pain [:)] However, wanted to point out that you pay a premium to buy Logos resources for the value they afford at the moment of purchase. There is never a promise or expectation of specific improvement of any given resource. I am the same way too - I am content right up to the point something cool is released and now I really want old resources to link to the new ones. Logos is committed to delighting customers by generally improving their resources, but they cannot, as a business, make a promise or a guarantee to link all existing resources to everything they produce in the future.

Dave Moser said:

If those links don't exist why am I paying a premium for Logos resources?

I completely agree with this.  Logos touts there link integration, but I admit that many times they fall short of this.  Most if not all of the "Classic" series have a many, many missing hyperlinks.  I have not yet found one place where they have retroactively fixed a link.  

--->I see this as a case of Logos (Bob) wanting to put out quantity over quality.  I don't see how it could be difficult to do a search within an entire logos catalog for a citation for a new (or classic work) that is released into Logos and then link them.  It was EXTREMELY frustrating this past year as I was doing an indepth study on Christology/Atonement and Stott would quote from a work that I had, but it wasn't linked to the "classic work." What good is that? I could highlight it and then search and find it that way.  But I could do that in ANY other software.

Sean said:

 

1. Is there anything that users can do to help this process?

 

I'd think a next-level feature for Logos would be to allow users to crowd source this kind of thing. There are lots of people who would likely be willing to help. This is what I would envision:

Suppose I am reading a long and see something that I think needs corrected, I could correct it instead of sending an email for Logos to correct. This corrected version would be sent to a few other who would double check my work. Wikipedia does it. This is how the Wordpress code is developed. There ought to be a way for Logos to do it. 

Veli Voipio said:

Whyndell Grizzard said:

The "linking" to have access to related resources is one of the MAJOR factors for buying Logos products- if this feature is being diminished- why spend thousands on their books- would it not result in what we were hopefully avoiding- having to manually search our libraries for the resource and quote?

Lets try this again[:D]

[Y][Y]

Josh Hunt said:

Rosie Perera said:

You could report the problem via the Report Typo tool (for each resource that is problematic, select one particular thing which should be a link and isn't, and put a comment in the comment field describing the lack of tagging in that resource and specifics like you've given in this post). That will at least go to the right department, but it will go into a huge queue and might not get addressed with as much urgency as if you emailed someone about the problem. And it's tedious. So I'd email someone. Problem is, I'm not sure who. I'm going to make some inquiries for you and try to draw this post to someone's attention.

Would this actually help? Does Logos even want this kind of feedback. These are not actual Typos as much as requests for improvement. 

Yes. They have told us to use the Report Typo tool to report missing links, and have told us to use the comment field when there's a systemic problem in a book that we don't want to report every single instance of. So, combining these two makes sense. So yes, they want this feedback. Will it actually help? Not sure, and there's nothing to do about that. Just try and hope it makes a difference.

Next to the practically worthless Notes function in L4/5/6 compared to L3, the vast ocean of dead and missing links in Logos is my greatest peeve. I am giving the Hoarder's Edition some serious consideration, but next to Notes and basic word search, I want my Library to be FULLY linked more than anything. I have bought thousands of commentaries...not because I will ever read them, but because when I am studying a given subject, I want to be able to follow the logic trail through my library. If my resources aren't linked (a trait that is offered front and center as one of Logos's great advantages), then I feel rather like I am being robbed. If the links that "weren't there" back in the day but are now a present and potential possibility are never going to be activated, why am I spending tens of thousands of dollars on this "system"?

I value Logos greatly, but the value is truncated at best by features that don't work as they should.

Given that Logos is the most important tool in the most important relationship in my life, these shortcomings are BIG DEALS.

Josh Hunt said:

Note to Logos: (and I know I am repeating myself) it seems to me the only realistic way to do this is to create an environment where users could help create and fix links. 

While I agree, the shear amount of links I've seen that need to be fixed, I wouldn't feel it was effective/worth my time to do them.  I think there is a more systemic issue than just the occasional missing link.

Mark Barnes said:

Undoubtedly that could be done for many resources...

That said, there would be a number of hurdles to overcome...

Thanks, Mark. You pointed out a number of issues I didn't consider. Of the two possible scenarios, resolving links dynamically after production and resolving them statically at the time the source documents are compiled into resources, given the points you made, I'm now hoping much more for the static approach if possible. It'd be ideal if all references in a resource could be marked up such that a pre-processor could be used resolve them into links when the targets exist. Then they could be periodically re-fed through again for updates. The benefits to Faithlife as you mentioned or alluded to are that: 1) a resource only has to be touched once for tagging saving a lot of time and money (a little more upfront but less on revisions, theoretically), 2) they could track the number of references to resources in order to prioritize future acquisitions that are more likely to produce sales, and 3) a better customer experience. BUT I'm speculating way too much; it's just fun to think about these kinda puzzles sometimes. I'm gonna shut up now since Kyle's already responded on the issue and I'm just talking out my bum.