RESOLVED BUG: Inconsistent Context Menu behavior on building morphology Search

This is simply a single example of a problem that exists across several of the Bibles with morphology coding.

Open one of the Bibles coded for morphology
Select a word
Open Context Menu
Select Morphology Code on left
Select Search for morphology code on the right
You will get a search in either format 1 or format 2 with no obvious pattern as to which appears.

I prefer format 2 as it provides more information but it appears as though the problem is the result of an incomplete migration for format 1. This is a BIG problem as the auto-built Search teach the user how to build their own manual searches. Inconsistency leads to confusion leads to frustration and should consistently lead to complaints to Faithlife.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Andrew Batishko

Option 1 is the preferred option (due to simplicity). It can only be used when there is only one possible morphology in your selected resource(s). Option 2 is used when there are multiple morphologies because its format is able to disambiguate between them.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075695#Comment_1075695

I don't quite understand. In all cases, I was opening the Search from the Context Menu which gave no indication multiple morphologies were available for the resource. If I build the argument manually I can find nothing beyond a standard Bible having 3 morphologies - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Are you saying that the program does not automatically select the correct language?

Option 1 is the preferred option (due to simplicity).

Another case where I can't think in Faithlife-ese. I don't understand how ambiguity is simpler than precision and think that is part of the reason for the difficulty in learning the interface..

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075700#Comment_1075700

I don't quite understand. In all cases, I was opening the Search from the Context Menu which gave no indication multiple morphologies were available for the resource. If I build the argument manually I can find nothing beyond a standard Bible having 3 morphologies - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Are you saying that the program does not automatically select the correct language?

The search engine can not handle the @ syntax if there are multiple morphologies available in a resource (e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), because the morphological codes use some of the same letters, making the search ambiguous. The search engine doesn't know the language of the word you right clicked on. Nothing ties the search back to where you right-clicked except for the query string and the specification of which resource to search. It needs the query string itself to specify the language. If there is only a single morphology used in a resource, then the query engine can figure out which one to use, and there is no need for the extended syntax.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075735#Comment_1075735

Thank you Andrew - that makes sense.