Linked Commentaries The current implementation of linked commentaries has some difficulties in its
The current implementation of linked commentaries has some difficulties in its use (Logos 4). When you cycle through commentaries using the left and right keys, the bible verse that is being linked to may change if the commentary you are viewing does not have the particular verse covered. However, if you cycle back to a commentary which does have that verse, your bible will move back to your original verse.*
There are however some problems with this that make it really difficult for me to use.
If you are in a commentary which does not cover the particular verse, but rather covers a range which includes your verse, the moment you do anything in the commentary, for example page down to read the parts of the article which are off screen, the bible reference changes and when you cycle to your original commentary, the bible does not go to your original verse, rather it is now synced to where you went in the commentary
If you are in a commentary, which does cover your verse, you may still want to read the introductory material for that chapter or book and doing so has the same effect on the bible. It changes to a different reference and you have now lost you position and have to find it using the back button or manually move to your original verse.
I saw that one of the competing products has the concept of leaders and followers when looking at linked resources. This would be a good concept to implement for bibles and commentaries. So that you could move around in a linked commentary as a follower and the leader (the bible) would not change its reference. A manual method (button/keystroke) could be added to have the leader resource sync up with the current location in the current follower resource, but it would no longer happen automatically for follower links.
*There are exceptions where you can end up in a commentary where the left and right arrow scrolls the page and then you loose the original reference when you use the drop down to cycle back, "The Bible Reader's Companion" and "The teachers Commentary" are two. In these cases, I have to use the drop down to change back to my original commentary, however, my bible reference remains changed. In the bible pane, I then use the "back" arrow button" (which does not move me back to my original verse, rather it moves me to the verse before where I was when I started the exercise), then use the "Forward Arrow" button which moves me back to my starting point. This is another weirdness in behaviour.
johan le commented
This has become a lot better with the "multiple resources" function in L7. I would still like to see something closer to what is described above, or by me below.
johan le commented
This still need to be addressed! It has been an annoying issue since I started using Libronix.
The best option may be to not resend links which are already active in a resource. Meaning that if Commentary X is active to Romans 3:21-24 and a link to any of those worses are sent from lniked Bible Y the request new link will simply not be listened to by Commentary X.
A possibility, similar to options discussed below, may be to make it possible for resources to be part of a linkset, but passive/quiet/listening etc. Activating this feature could work like the current "Send Hyperlinks Here" feature. What I mean with this is that changes in passive recourse X will not be reflected in linked resource Y, while changes in resource Y (which is not passive) will be reflected in resource X. Here X could be commentary, Y could be Bible, or Y could be BAGD, X could be A Concise Greek-English Dict..."
Unlinking commentaries as a workaround should not be something we are forced to do!
Ronald McLaughlin commented
Beautiful, I don't think you could have explained exactly what I want most any better! Thank you.
John Kaess commented
I would like to add myself to those desperately wanting this feature. While I prefer the terms "master/slave" over "Leader/follower" the idea is the same. HOWEVER, for my use, I want to be able to designate which link is the master/leader. In my use this is almost always the Passage Guide, and not the scripture passage. I want all of the links to follow this master/leader link and any changes in any slave/follower link should NOT effect any other link in any way. This is a daily frustration for me, but since this item request was first made in 2010, it seems it is not a priority
This is to extend this request to implement the concept of a leader which
would allow you to scroll in a linked resource without having the primary linked resource follow it. The purpose was to have a bible and a commentary linked and be able to read in the commentary without having the bible scroll to new verses as you moved in the commentary. The idea was to follow how another bible program operates with the idea of leaders and followers. Moving in a leader resource causes follower resources to sync, but moving in a follower resource does not cause the leader resource to sync without special action (such as a button, or right click action)
Last night I found the perfect example of why the current Logos behaviour does not work and this feature needs to be implemented.
I have my bible linked to Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (TOTC) and was reading in Job 35. The TOTC section on this passage is for the whole of chapter 35, versus 1-16 and is quite long.
As I am reading through Job I get to the second half of chapter 35 and I want to see what the TOTC says for verse 9. The TOTC has synced and I can see the paragraphs for verses 1-8 so I scroll down to see the part on verse 9 and following. This causes my bible to jump back to verse 1. If I then scroll the bible back to verse 9, the TOTC jumps back to verse 1.
Large passages in a commentary make the linked resource feature impossible(?) to use straight up.
The only way it seems that I can see both at the same time is to unlink the two resources or resize my windows when this happens to see both passages at the same time.
This to me is the tool getting in the way of what I want to do.
I think this example shows that the current design is deficient and this should be treated as a bug fix :)