"OR" search not working logically / frustration with mandatory search filters

[TYA]

Great day Team,

 

This is a second demonstration of what I pointed out in my screenshots under the topic "Question about "OR" search."  Please see the 2 screenshots attached below, in chronological order.  Thanks for all you do!

[Mark Allison]

While not a complete solution to your problem, I tend to use the Ctrl-; shortcut to cycle through the different search fields.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Mark Allison

[Timothy Jenney]

It is easiest to use Research to search multiple fields. See screenshot for a search of all fields in the English language with the word "Brich*." It appears only in the English content field, BTW.

 

 

 

 

Your search has no Search criteria in the Hebrew Entry field, which is the field to which you have tied the <AND> in the second Search criteria. I'm also not quite sure how the third Search criterion, the one with the <OR> is tied to the two previous criteria. Do you mean a hit in the Hebrew Entry field (which is blank), then also a hit in either English content or English Glosses?

[Timothy Jenney]

BTW, do you have Quick Entry turned on? (Preferences>Appearance>Quick Entry)

 

It makes it easy to tell if a word appears in a field as you type. You'll see a list of words that appear in the field, constrained further by each letter you type.

 

If I enter "Brich*" in both fields (ignoring Quick Entry), then search, Accordance highlights the word in the Search field that is does not find, then tells us the word does not appear.

 

 

[Mark Allison]

However, the original point being made is a good one, which is that even if the word is found in one field, if you add another field in which the word is not found (using the "OR" option), then Accordance doesn't find any hits in either field. 

 

[TYA]

"While not a complete solution to your problem, I tend to use the Ctrl-; shortcut to cycle through the different search fields."

 

 

Thanks Mark, but viewing the filters isn't an issue, or really an interest for me at this point.  I trust they are valuable for others, but they have been nothing but a complete hindrance and frustration to me thus far.  I want to be able to find what I'm looking for--starting from where my initial search brought me (e.g. the Hebrew word "alah" in the screenshot), and then working down.  Which leads me to next point...

 

It is easiest to use Research to search multiple fields.

 

 

Thanks for this, but my goal isn't to find all instances of "Brichto" in Accordance.  My goal was, after having performed an initial search on the Hebrew word "alah," to scan quickly to see if "Brichto" was mentioned in that entry.  This is what I call a "two-step search" (though there's probably a better name for it).  Hence, my request is to have "All / Any" *within* the page I'm already looking at--not to approach from the Research tab.  (I love the Research tab, but that isn't what I'm doing here).

 

Your search has no Search criteria in the Hebrew Entry field...

 

 

Accordance removed it, as it always does (and I don't know why).  The search, as mentioned above, had just been performed on the Hebrew word "alah" (curse), as shown in my initial screenshots.  And that is what led me to open the TLOT Lexicon.

 

Now, all I want (as is my typical search process) is to be able to search "Brichto" from *within* the page I'm looking at.  Please make it simple.  Don't force me to choose filters.  I don't want to and I shouldn't have to.  (How frustrating).  If you will continue to make filters mandatory, then simply include one that says "All / Any" (at least regarding English characters), so I'm not pigeon-holed.

 

Gentlemen: I assure you that this will also be best accomplished with a simple "Find on Page" utility in Accordance (and please make it available as universally as possible within the program).  It makes scanning / searching for something *within* an existing page lightning fast.  I've never seen anything that can beat this; and I will be oh so grateful.

 

I absolutely love the immense amount of content available in Accordance, and have already begun to invest seriously into it.  This is one thing that excites me so much about Accordance as compared to some other software's I use.  But I must be able to find what I'm looking for quickly and reliably.  That requires a two-stage process.

 

I must be able to 1) get to the initial place I want to read about (in this case, the Hebrew word "alah"), and 2) from that place scan effectively for words like "Brichto."  I don't want to have to figure out, guess, or assume the following:

 

1) Will what I'm scanning for be found within only the same line, the same paragraph, or the same article?  (Every piece of literature is formatted differently in Accordance anyway, so there is no way for me to effectively make these assumptions up front, unless I have a perfect photographic memory of every single literary work in Accordance).

 

I don't want to have to know any of this.  I want to simply scan downwards from where I'm at, and find *all* the content.

 

2) Is what I'm looking for classified as "English content," "English gloss," "English title," "Definition," etc?  (I'm sure there are times when the distinction will be valuable; but at the same time it creates 4 times the work, because you've divided the possibilities 4 different ways, and I'll fail to find what I'm looking for.

 

Yes, I know difference between the meaning of these filters, but that's not the point.  I don't know where the actual content *I'm looking for* will be found; and again, I obviously shouldn't have to.  The filters just multiply the work (at best), and make it near impossible for me to find what I'm looking for.

 

Do you mean a hit in the Hebrew Entry field (which is blank), then also a hit in either English content or English Glosses?

 

 

Yes sir, as I explained above.  (Sorry for any confusion, given that the Hebrew field was blank; but as I stated above, that's not my fault.  I don't know why Accordance removes the word after it is searched.  See my initial screenshots for reference if necessary.  Maybe something to look into).

 

BTW, do you have Quick Entry turned on? (Preferences>Appearance>Quick Entry)

 

 

Yes sir, it is on.  Thanks for pointing it out, but just to be on topic, this doesn't solve the issue.

 

However, the original point being made is a good one, which is that even if the word is found in one field, if you add another field in which the word is not found (using the "OR" option), then Accordance doesn't find any hits in either field. 

 

 

Exactly.

[Timothy Jenney]

Thanks for sharing your experiences with us, though I am sorry you've become frustrated. We've already added features for BW Switchers (I assume that's the program you've coming from.) and expect to add more. Specific feedback like yours is helpful when we consider adding features (though I obviously can't promise anything at this point).

 

We have had requests to add additional search fields to Research, which is our global search feature. I think that addition would solve your issue.

 

However, I don't think anyone has ever asked us to add a global language search (e.g. English) to the Tool Tab, though. It's an interesting idea. I'll let our programmers chew it over a bit.

 

We have two reasons for constraining regular searches to a particular field. First, it makes our searches much, much faster. Second, it enables our users to find the data they want quickly, without burying it in a lot of irrelevant results.

[TYA]

Thank you, Dr. J.

 

You are all most gracious in all that you've done, and I'm sincerely grateful beyond words.  I think my points are made here.  Please don't overlook the valid point I made that the search filters aren't working properly with the "OR" search.  This issue, of course, has nothing to do with the previous software I used.

 

And it is admirable to want to have fast search times.  Perhaps then, the "Find on Page" utility would work best for Accordance?  I assure you that many users will be thankful, whether they post openly in the forums about it or not.  Thank you for your time.

Edited September 14, 2018 by TYA

[Timothy Jenney]

I have passed along your report to our programmers, along with your suggestion for a language-specific (or global) additional search field in a Tool.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Timothy Jenney

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I don't know if I recall anyone expressly asking for a global search but I have often thought that it would be a good thing to have. I would like to be able to type in Unicode string of whatever and have that be searched for. I don't mind how the implementation works - search indexed fields converting the search string as required, search directly in Unicode, search by straight text scan - the important thing is that it should be simple for the user. So I think this would be a good addition.

 

As to the OR field not running the search but rather saying that the term does not exist in the module has been mentioned several times before. As I've said elsewhere I would prefer that the search were run and the results be what they will, but that is not everyone's preference. It's not such a problem where it's the only term in the search I suppose though automation cases don't handle it well, but where there are multiple terms and results would be returned I think it would be a nice option. Of course the offending term could be optimized out of the query as run so as not to burden the runtime.

 

Thx

D

[TYA]

Great day, all.

 

I know this issue has already been noted and passed along to the programmers (per Dr. J. above), but just one more example that I encountered tonight, which might be helpful for the programmers to see.

 

I'm new to Neusner's Talmud in Accordance.  All the various search filters: how am I supposed to know the difference between "Rabbinic Content" and "English Content," and where I will find which?  (But that is just a side comment regarding the request above for a global English search, and "Find on Page," which will help tremendously).

 

(For, as I noted above, many modules in Accordance are formatted differently anyway, and so a global / universal ability to search (at least English content) will simplify things greatly, even if one enjoys using the limited filters).

 

Now, this illustration tonight shows that the "AND" filters aren't working together properly (or else, there is another reason for this trouble?)  At any rate, it doesn't make sense to me, and I just want a reliable, easy-to-use search mechanism.  As D. said above, "it should be simple for the user."  Thank you.

Edited September 18, 2018 by TYA

[Timothy Jenney]

The obvious answer is that neither Yerushalmi nor Shebbiit were tagged as chapter titles. If you're curious as to how they were tagged, use Research>English and search a custom group of just this resource.

 

It turns out that Yerushalmi is tagged twenty-eight times as a title, 103 times in Rabbinic content, and 2179 as English content. Investigating hits in each of these categories will provide some insight into what distinguishes Rabbinic from English content.

 

Shebiit is tagged fifty-six times as reference, once as a title (at the beginning of the tractate), forty times in Rabbinic content and ten times in English content. See screenshots.

 

What you are discovering is that effective searching means being well-acquainted with both the content of the resource and the peculiarities of the particular database you are investigating. I'll venture to say that no database is going to be perfect for every purpose. The multiple indexing that Accordance uses that is frustrating you may well be (is!) someone else's ideal—and perfect for their purpose.

 

Please understand I'm not dismissing your feedback. As I've said before, we appreciate it and will take advantage of it going forward. However, to date your searches have been shaped by BW's databases. Accordance's are organized differently and it will take you a bit to get used to those differences. Ditto for Perseus and the many other databases now available to biblical scholars. Welcome to the technological age, with both its advantages and its disadvantages.

 

PS

Did you see the recent podcast on bracketed words in Accordance? It's a perfect example of how knowing the peculiarities of an electronic text sharpens research.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Timothy Jenney

[TYA]

The obvious answer is that neither Yerushalmi nor Shebbiit were tagged as chapter titles.

 

Thanks Dr. J., but there is nothing obvious about this.  To the contrary, it is 100% counterintuitive if you ask me.  Honestly, did you see the screenshot I attached?

 

The title of the Talmud section was literally (with caps): "YERUSHALMI SHEBIIT CHAPTER TWO".  It is totally illogical to me that the words "CHAPTER" and "TWO" would be tagged as titles, while "YERUSHALMI" and "SHEBIIT" aren't; yet they're literally in the same line / title--clearly what any reasonable person would consider the title.

 

Sincerely sir, how can part of the chapter heading "YERUSHALMI SHEBIIT CHAPTER TWO" be considered a Title in the search filter, and part of it *not* be considered a Title in the search filter?  This then leads to the next response...

 

What you are discovering is that effective searching means being well-acquainted with both the content of the resource and the peculiarities of the particular database you are investigating.

 

Which was my point earlier in the post--viz., that modules / texts are formatted differently from one another in Accordance.  Nothing wrong with that, but it makes "being well-acquainted..." a challenge, if not an impossibility.  Suppose I purchase the "All-In-All" for $37,000.  Will you expect me to know how each and every database is formatted... what is considered "Title," "English Content," "Rabbinic Content," "Reference," and so on?  Impossible.

 

Yes, I also acknowledged that these filters are certainly a benefit as well.  My simple request: add a global English search filter.  I can't think of any reason why I had to go through this whole process just to find the title heading, "YERUSHALMI SHEBIIT CHAPTER TWO," that I was looking for.

 

I should be able to search "Globally" for "YERUSHALMI" and "TWO" (which is one of many combinations that I tried in the failed attempt), and find what I'm looking for.  To be honest sir, I thought I had an ironclad case about the need for a global "any/all" English search *before* discovering last night that "YERUSHALMI SHEBIIT CHAPTER TWO" apparently can't even be searched together--that is, under one filter.  That simply makes no sense at all.

 

I'm learning to gander a difference between things like "Rabbinic Content" and "English Content," but what exactly is "Rabbinic Content" anyway?  Clearly, it is not Hebrew text.

 

Now again, I'm not putting down the search filters.  I never did that.  I only said that 1) they are frustrating *me*; but more so, 2) Also make available the global search.  And of course, the "Find on Page" will be even better for searching downward from the point where a person is in the text.

 

However, to date your searches have been shaped by BW's databases.

 

You will have to explain what you mean by this.  I see no relevance to this statement whatsoever.  And no: my searches aren't shaped by BW's databases--at least not with regard this this thread.  My searches are shaped by mere logic.  E.g.: "YERUSHALMI" and "TWO" should both be found under the filter "Title," since they are clearly part of the title: "YERUSHALMI SHEBIIT CHAPTER TWO."  (Are we really debating this??)

 

Did you see the recent podcast on bracketed words in Accordance?

 

Not yet.  I will be happy to learn.  And I am learning, as I've explained to others here.  But I really think you are only making my point even stronger, after all this above, that a global English search is necessary.  Again, *not* opposed to the existing search filters.  I am learning to appreciate these too.  But a global English search, nonetheless.  And "Find on Page."  Thank you.

Edited September 18, 2018 by TYA

[Timothy Jenney]

Again, I am not ignoring your call for a global English search. However, even if our programmers decide to heed it, the feature won't be available immediately. I'm more interested in helping you become productive with the features that are already in place.

 

I'm not a developer, but I can guess as to why "Yerushalami" was not tagged as a title word. It's the title of the entire work. In print it is repeated ahead of each chapter, which is just fine. Print versions have a separate Table of Contents at the beginning of the work, which occupies the entire width of the page.

 

Things are different in electronic texts.  Our Accordance users typically open the table of contents as a very narrow window beside the text, then use it to navigate from section to section by clicking the chapter (tractate) titles, which are all hypertext linked to the beginning of the chapter. Since (I assume) every chapter begins with "Yerushalami," would you really want that word at the beginning of each chapter title in the TOC? The first inch or so of the TOC would have nothing but that word, repeated for every chapter. Would that really help people navigate the text? Indexing that word as part of a chapter title would have automatically entered it at the top level, which would have done just that. (Developers, feel free to jump in here if I am wrong on this point. Any of you know more than I.). Instead, the developers tagged the unique words at the beginning of the chapter, which I think was much more helpful.

 

In fact, given that that is the case, I'm not quite sure why you would have included "Yerushalami" or "Chapter" in your search at all. They would appear at the beginning of every tractate. If you simply wanted to move from tractate to tractate, why not use the TOC, as that is its function?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Timothy Jenney

[Λύχνις Δαν]

While I'll grant the non-indexing of Yerushalmi is the likely reason for the non-finding of it in this case, the Shebiit case looks like an error in the search. TYA, in your screen shot for the search you have Shebitt and yet the title is Shebiit. If you change the spelling does that search then work ?

 

Thx

D

[TYA]

D.: Not at the computer right now, but I can check on that soon. I probably try the spelling multiple ways, but I may have made an error there. Thanks for pointing it out

 

Dr. J.: I also use the Table of Contents in the left pane. As to searching "Yerushalmi," to answer your question, it would have been ideal for me to be able to search "Yerushalmi" <AND> "Chapter" <AND> "Two." But this didn't work. Just doing "chapter" <AND> "Two" yielded too many results.

 

The "Find on page" will help the workflow as well.

 

Thank you sir

[TYA]

Update: @ D.: the spelling of "Shebiit" wasn't the problem.  Accordance doesn't find it regardless.  Plus, I've searched every possible combination, even after I use the Table of Contents (left pane) to get me to the tractate.  See this newest screenshot carefully.  Thank you all.

 

Dr. J: I appreciate all the information and education, and I'm *not* eschewing it away.  But no matter the amount of education, as I said before, it would literally be impossible to know every filter, format, and process in Accordance.  And even if I could, I shouldn't have to.  That's where simplicity should come in.

 

The global search and "Find on page" solutions are far quicker, more intuitive, and don't have to replace the current filters that exist.  Please see this last screenshot for this thread.  "Yerushalmi" has nothing to do with it.  Thank you.

Edited September 18, 2018 by TYA

[Timothy Jenney]

[Mark Allison]

the spelling of "Shebiit" wasn't the problem.

 

You're probably not going to like this answer, but the reason you can't find "Shebiit" and "Two" when searching in the Title field is that "Shebiit" is not in the Title field, it's actually in the "English Content" field. "Two", however, is in the title field.

 

The decision to do that was made by the developer, so that the Table of Contents would look cleaner. If you look at the TOC, you'll see that it simply says "Chapter Two", instead of the longer "Yerushalmi Shebiit Chapter Two."

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Mark Allison

[Rick Bennett]

A little late to the party, but a couple points of clarification from the content development side that will hopefully help:

 

1. Reference Tools. The first field in every reference tool (i.e. a resource intended to sync in parallel with a particular corpus of texts) is Reference. This is the main reference being commented upon and is used to sync to the text when opened in parallel. You search this field like you would search a Text. The abbreviations used are standardized throughout the corpus, and one only needs to enter enough letters in the search to make it a uniquely identifiable search. The quick entry popup will assist in the spelling of book names as well. So, in this case searching for Sheb or Shebi or Shebiit 2 will find Shebiit Chapter 2.

 

2. Field Indexing and the TOC. [And, I just saw Mark's reply, so forgive the duplicate comments] The Title field in general is used to index those words that should appear in the TOC. Accordance uses the exact text found in the resource to render the TOC based on field indexing. In this case, as Mark said, the decision was made to clean up the look of the TOC by indexing words in the Title and Content field. I agree it's not intuitive based on the search you're attempting, but that's the route we have gone in numerous resources over the years. Now, however, we also support a different method of rendering the TOC, and we could theoretically change this resource. But, to do so would require reworking the whole resource, and would require the minimum version of Accordance to be increased.

 

Recommendation: aside from your feature request being implemented, to search for, or navigate to, a particular reference in a Reference Tool, use one of the methods described in Tim's screen shot just above this: Use the TOC, Search the reference field (see number 1 above), or Search via the GoTo box. 

 

I hope this helps.

[Timothy Jenney]

Actually, I now see that my comment about the reference field was incorrect. The whole name of a tractate does work, as does any identifiable part of it.

[TYA]

Dr. J: Thank you for that screenshot with 3 ways to search.  It is indeed helpful given the current configuration.  Like I said, I'm not eschewing away any help.  So thank you.

 

Mark: Your explanation makes complete sense from a technical standpoint (and you're right, I don't like it .  But you continue to be a blessing.  Thanks much.

 

Rick: Thank you for also jumping in.  All makes sense--again, from a technical standpoint.  And I would never want Accordance to have to rework anything on account of a complaint like this (but do consider the other posts on the "OR" search trouble I was having). I hope that's not the impression I'm giving.  I can work with Dr. J.'s helpful suggestions in the meantime.

 

I'd probably be happy if I just saw a "Find on Page" utility, as this would be so helpful, bridging a huge gap for me--especially if it could pick up partial entries (as most Find on Page utilities do, like "Sheb*" for "Shebiit." But a global search--if it happens--would also be very great.  I'm confident others would enjoy the benefits.

 

As I said before, no matter how much I learn about TOC and all these filters, simplicity always seems best.  And please remember that some other users here have acknowledged that too.  Blessings gentlemen!

Edited September 20, 2018 by TYA