Compound Search in Eerdman's Dictionary

[TYA]

Great day all,

 

I continue to be troubled by what strikes me as inconsistency and illogical results in Accordance' search (both when cross-searching Hebrew/Aramaic texts, and (in this case), searching English in tools).

 

The importance of the topmost field when searching in tools was previously explained to me (post #2 here), but the explanation doesn't seem to bear out with what I found here (see attached image).

[Michael Hunt]

Simply put your search terms are not nested.

 

You are wanting a search that matches (X AND Y) OR (X AND Z). Instead, you search as constructed is actually seen by Accordance as (X AND Y) OR Z.

 

There is a lot of power available to Accordance users by this setup (especially through the different categories that you are finding frustrating).

 

However, I can see how your request for a "find on this page" feature to be added would help with your workflow.

[TYA]

Simply put your search terms are not nested.  You are wanting a search that matches (X AND Y) OR (X AND Z). Instead, you search as constructed is actually seen by Accordance as (X AND Y) OR Z.

 

I think there may be a misunderstanding here, or at the very least, your statement above leaves out some of the important search criteria in my screenshot.

 

In real terms, what my screenshot intends to show is that I'm searching for either the word "etymology" or the word "meaning" (both being classified by as "English content" by the filters) within the specific entry for "Aphek" in Eerdman's Dictionary.

 

But as the screenshot shows, I'm getting a hit for one of the words (viz., "meaning") outside of the entry for "Aphek."  In other words, the problem / confusion is that I'm getting a hit outside of the limited scope that I want--viz., the entry for "Aphek."

 

There is a lot of power available to Accordance users by this setup (especially through the different categories that you are finding frustrating).

 

I agree 100%; and just for the record, in my previous posts related to search issues, I've generally acknowledged the value of this variety of filters for the user.  I've never said that this should be changed; I've only asked that an additional filter for "All / Any" be added, which would better suit my process.

 

However, I can see how your request for a "find on this page" feature to be added would help with your workflow.

 

Yes, more than you can imagine at this point

Edited November 18, 2018 by TYA

[Mark Allison]

 

In real terms, what my screenshot intends to show is that I'm searching for either the word "etymology" or the word "meaning" (both being classified by as "English content" by the filters) within the specific entry for "Aphek" in Eerdman's Dictionary.

 

 

 

According to the help documentation (Digging Deeper > Study Aids: Tools and Parallels > Using Tools > Search Entry Area: Tools Tab) the "OR" option creates a new search set (it could be made clearer; I'll see what I can do). What you're searching for in your example is (Aphek and etymology) OR (meaning). To obtain the results you desire, use the <OR> command .

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Mark Allison

[Michael Hunt]

Thanks Mark. That section of the help files makes it clearer what I was trying to say.

 

http://accordancefiles2.com/helpfiles/OSX12/Default.htm#topics/05_dd/search_entry_area_tw.htm%3FTocPath%3DDigging%2520Deeper%7CStudy%2520Aids%253A%2520Tools%2520and%2520Parallels%7CUsing%2520Tools%7CThe%2520Tools%2520Tab%7C_____2

 

When multiple fields are used, and you mix the AND and OR relationships, each search field is evaluated in order.

Example:

• If M is the main Search Entry Field,
• AND, OR, NOT define the context of the searches, and
• 1, 2, 3, and 4, represent the extra search fields that you can use, then:

M AND 1 OR 2 NOT 3 = (M AND 1 NOT 3) or (2 NOT 3)

M OR 1 NOT 2 AND 3 = (M AND 3 NOT 2) or (1 AND 3 NOT 2)

M AND 1 NOT 2 OR 3 = (M AND 1 NOT 2) OR 3

M OR 1 AND 2 OR 3 = (M AND 2) or (1 AND 2) or 3

M OR 1 AND 2 OR 3 OR 4 = (M AND 2) or (1 AND 2) or 3 or 4

where = shows the argument as it would appear if parentheses were used to nest the expressions.

[TYA]

To obtain the results you desire, use the <OR> command .

 

That's the helpful tip I needed here, shown in your screenshot.  Thanks, Mark.  I see the difference now.

 

it could be made clearer; I'll see what I can do

 

Yes, and here (attached 2 new images) is my illustration of what you both said above, in perhaps clearest terms for those reading this post.

 

But to conclude: adding an "All / Any" search filter would save time for those who see the distinction between "English Content" and "Bibliography" (as illustrated in this newest screenshot) as unnecessary or arbitrary.

 

Yes, as Michael said above, there is power in such filters, but at the same time, the filters can also cause a limitation of power.  Because to me, "power" would be finding (in these newest screenshots) the word "Aphek" in all occurrences within the entry, regardless of whether Accordance classifies it as "English Content," "Entry," or "Bibliography."

 

To repeat: "power" to me would be saving the time of having to manually sort through Accordance' list of filters, making sure to add multiple "AND" filters in order to cover all potential bases.  That's the opposite of "power," because it is time consuming, and includes the potential for missing valuable search hits.

 

And remember, the filters vary from one work to another, so there isn't even a consistent paradigm for them across the board.  But again, I'm not filter-bashing here.  I agree with Michael, that the filters provide power; but they are incomplete--that is, they are missing the single most important filter of all--the one that should have been the baseline search from the very beginning: "ANY / ALL."

 

That, dear friends, will add even more power to Accordance, and just as importantly, it will prevent Accordance from robbing "power" from searches, as I've pleaded so many times now.

Edited November 18, 2018 by TYA

[Michael Hunt]

Like I said, I can see in the way you work why a global style "ANY/ALL" category would help.

 

I use a similar workflow when browsing articles online. For example: say I want to find out what Wikipedia has to say on the topic of Australian Lighthouses. I might use Google or the Wikipedia search function to take me to the right article. I then decided I want to find a picture of the lighthouse I saw when on holidays at Nelson Bay. So a quick cmd-F and a search for "Nelson Bay" it is all it takes for me to land directly to that spot in the article.

 

The thing is the fine grain categories of Accordance give it powerful Google-like search capability when it comes to accessing the resources we own. You are using that power in your example to restrict your search to just the entry on "Aphek" (and as Mark has pointed out it just needs tweaking of your search terms order to get the results you want). These categories also give Accordance power to create tables of contents (and make them searchable on their own), open devotionals and lectionaries to specific locations based on dates, search by page numbers (useful when consulting both digital and hardcopy resources) not to mention the multitude of original languages searches you conduct. (And of course a host of other useful and powerful functions).

 

Accordance programmers have developed these categories for constructing powerful searches and given us a Bible software engine that lets us "google" in amazing ways the resource we own. I chatted with a visiting professor to Australia once about Accordance and both of us admitted that we didn't even think we had scratched the surface of what Accordance is capable of (and we had several years of experience each with it).

 

Now, I tend to either skim read articles and/or use the table of contents in Accordance to guide me to a particular part when I search them. Nearly all my searches outside of texts are in the English Content or Entry/Titles category. I find for what I do Accordance intelligently guesses the right category for me to search without having to select. However, I might barely do 10 searches in a day that are not related to a simple passage lookup. Thus the "find on page" or "find all" category is not something I'm chomping at the bit for.

 

Maybe it is just me but lately, when using Accordance, I'm trying to practise a more mindful and slow digestive approach to the resources I own especially the biblical texts. These are not just another web page whose contents I will need to look up again in 5 mins when I have forgotten the results. I want these words to stay with me and deeply impress upon my whole being their weight and truth. 

[TYA]

Michael, a beautiful post you gave.  I enjoyed reading it, and getting your perspective; and I definitely agree with several points you make.  And I also like to sing Accordance' praises.  (I've done this quite a bit offline over the past few months).

 

Just to be clear, although I've been posting primarily on one English search approach, I'm also a "digestive" reader / searcher too, like you.  But, as I think you'll agree, that doesn't negate the need for optimal searching for other approaches, which is where the "Any / All" filter / Find on Page will be of great use.  I'm sure many people would use them daily.

 

The more I begin to dig into my growing library, the greater the variety of classifications, organization schemes, and subsequently, filters, I come across.  For example, just last night I spent about 30 minutes just trying to figure out how Accordance classified / handled manuscript abbreviations in the UBS5 Apparatus--especially in conjunction with specific page numbers.

 

One abbreviation for "Latin" (as in "Old Latin" manuscripts) is simply "it."  Perhaps you can start to see how confusing that would be, or rather, how many potential filters / classifications Accordance could fit that into.

 

I had to go through a trial and error process to get Accordance to find all references to "it" on p. 31 in the apparatus, and it took about 15 minutes--partially because of the fact that the page number was located at the top instead of the bottom (confusing), and the next page number (#32) didn't exist(!)

 

Now, to your credit, Michael, one day I will have "digested" more of the UBS5 and how Accordance handles it.  Then I'll know exactly what to do.  But as I've stated before on this forum, I invested in Accordance (in part) because of its wonderful, growing library of resources.  And everyone could have different classifications, organizations, and filters.

 

The bottom line is that having an "Any / All" filter, or at the very least, a Find on Page utility, would have saved me about 15 minutes.  And believe me, I could continue (as I already have on this forum) to multiply examples in order to demonstrate why these functions would be helpful--only an improvement, and not taking anything away from Accordance' already-powerful search.

 

When I first came to Accordance, I was told by a higher staff member that the "Find on Page" had been requested for years, and that it was finally going to be in the works.  But your kind post earlier discouraged me, leading me to believe that it could take (I don't know?) years before it appears.

 

Perhaps, if I knew if these things were seriously in the works, I'd lighten up about it.  But believe me, if I've invested into something, and plan to be using it (G-d willing) for a very long time, I want to see it be the very best it can be.

 

These items I'm requesting are already (believe it or not) part of the majority of Bible software's and/or internet-based utilities that I currently use.  Therefore, I feel a very large gap here in Accordance.  I'm not asking for something impossible, you see.

 

Thanks again for sharing what you have.  Again, with all sincerity, I enjoy hearing of others' journeys and processes.

Edited November 20, 2018 by TYA