Poll: Allow out of sequence verse numbers in cross references?

Question

(NOTE! This topic is being posted for review by the Paratext Prioritization Committee. We are still in working on how this process will work. For now, anyone on the site is welcome to write a comment stating an opinion for this topic by clicking “Reply” below. HOWEVER, if you are not a committee member please do not vote in the poll below.)

QUESTION: Currently if the user enters a cross reference like \x - \xo 1.2 \xt Gn 3.12,2.\x* we flag it as an error because verse 12 is listed before verse 2. Unfortunately some projects use this form to mean “Verse 12 is the most important cross reference here and verse 2 is also a cross reference but not as important.” Should we

• Not allow “12,2”. Always flag this an error. (This is what we currently do)

• Always allow “12,2”. It is not really an error.

• Provide the user an option to allow this. Make the default value be “Don’t Allow”.

• Provide the user an option to allow this. Make the default value be “Allow”.

DISCUSSION:

This topic has some importance in that we don’t normally allow texts to be uploaded to DBL with errors. There is an option to Deny an error like this. It would allow the upload but would stop the user from being able to follow the “failing” link in any electronic text.

I should also mention that we currently DO allow \xt Ex 1.1; Gn 2.3.\xt and also allow \xt Gn 3.1, 2.1.\xt. I suppose if we really think that \xt Gn 3.12,2.\xt is an error we ought to be flagging them too. (which would probably cause some texts that previously uploaded ok DBL to start failing, sigh).

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 1

IanH, I like your proposal. My thought was to provide a way to give users a count of what they have. See a related cross reference example from GNT below… What structures are present? Obviously this sample focuses on sfm markers but a related sort and count would highlight sequences that deviate.

A “warn” message would help users be able to FIND and either approve or fix problems.

Seems to me important that if we have an ALLOW option, we also must provide a way to SEE the ones that don’t follow the normal sequence / pattern.

1: \xt x \xdc x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
1: \xt x \xdc x\x*
1: \xt x \xdc x\xdc* \xo x \xt x\x*
1: \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
1: \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\xt*\x*
1: \xt x\xdc x\x*
2: \xt x \xdc x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
2: \xt x \xo x \xt x\xdc x\xdc*\x*
5: \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
5: \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
9: \xt x \xdc x \xt x\x*
26: \xt x \xo x \xt x\xt*\x*
28: \xt x \xo x \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
40: \xt x\xdc x\xdc*\x*
176: \xt x \xo x \xt x\x*
303: \xt x\xt*\x*
3024: \xt x\x*
3626: TOTAL

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Comments

I think anon198078 has a very good point. Even users that want to Allow this as an option need to see every occurrence where it happens … because each occurrence may be either intentional or an error. I am presuming that even texts that do this only do it a limited number of times.

What if we create a new kind of error message

Warning: All references are valid but are not present in the order they appear in the text.

As a warning this would not stop the project from being uploaded to DBL. It would make users aware of every place it happened so they can check it. Users could use the standard Deny function to get this warning out of view.

It would not require a new option … because the only reason for the option is to suppress the warning and we don’t want to do that because it also suppresses catching errors.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

---

AND the List window display could sort these “errors” together to ease checking.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

---

I join this late, but find IanH’s proposal sensible and anon198078’s additional comment to show users where they are deviating crucial. We must allow users flexibility, but we must also help them see where they may have made errors.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 2

I (anon451647) have a worry about adding options.

There is only a certain number of options you can add before users start to feel overwhelmed by the choices. We currently have two check box options (Referenced verse segments must be in text. Final punction must end each \xt section.)

I don’t think adding a third option would get us to “overwhelming”. However, it does feel (to me at least) like the ability to mark these as errors is not particularly important and I am reluctant to use up one of my limited number of non-overwhelming options on it.

It also takes us more time to add an option (a handful of hours by the time we code, test, and document) than it does to just allow it all the time.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Comments

I agree with the concern about adding too many options and I’m beginning to be concerned about how “big” Paratext is getting. However, I think this needs to be optional. If teams regularly place the entries out of order then we need to give them the ability to approve those. For those who don’t do this intentionally there should be a way to locate these errors. I don’t think that having the larger blocks (Exodus before Genesis) is as great a concern. One reason I’d want to flag the out of order verses is because it is very easy to miss a character and so Mat 12,4 was really supposed to be Mat 12,14.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

---

The current state of flagging errors inconsistently. E.g. \xt Ex 1.1; Gn 2.3. being OK but not \xt Gn 3.12,2. is problematic. Flagging all as errors creates a problem for DBL and generating reference links. Flagging none makes the check weak / ineffective at times. I agree with anon848905’s reply that in this case an option does seem valid and necessary.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 3

I think adding an option in Scripture Reference Settings, where most users have no need to go once it is set up for them, is much less problematic than in some other places. So I don’t see a problem with adding an option as long as it is explained in the guide for the dialog.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 4

anon451647,

I think I accidentally added another vote for the “Always allow” - I thought the voting only happened if you clicked on the circle and didn’t realize that by clicking on the vote tally it would update! Yikes - I don’t like that feature of the poll.

anon848905

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 5

I assume that whatever we do here will also apply to the references in parallel passages? Eg, Luke 12:22-34 has a section head “Do Not Worry”. The first part of this section (vv. 22-31) is parallelled in Mat 6:25-34, and the last part (vv. 32-34) in Mat 6:19-21. So the \r line is
\r Mat 6:25-34, 19-21
to reflect the order in which the topics occur in Mathew’s Gospel. But it’s flagged as an error. Hopefully allowing it in cross references will allow it in parallel passage lines as well.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Comments

We have the same issue with parallel passages and out-of-order verses. But I really do like the feature of checking for the right order (which should be default in my opinion).

anon719148

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 6

I apologise if this is not the correct place to make UI suggestions. But here goes…

If it were possible to have 3 check result states, “pass”, “warn” and “fail” we could take away the burden/confusion of making a choice (which the user may not even realise they need to make and may not know where to find it).

1. Pass = references are valid and listed in order
2. Warn = references are valid, but not in order
3. Fail = not all references are valid

If a user denies the following “warning” message in the list window (a few times?):

References are not listed in verse order

…they would be prompted to make a decision about this project:

All references are valid, but not presented in the order they appear in the text 

[ Always allow valid references to appear in any order in project XYZ ]
[ Ask me every time ]

This choice would equate to a tick-box in the scripture reference settings dialog, so they can change it manually if they make an mistake. But the first time Paratext finds this problem (if the user has made no choice in scripture reference settings) AND the first time this problem is found after someone changes the option in scripture reference settings, Paratext will ask the user what to do and set this option for them.

The advantage is that Paratext helps the user make the choice they need to make when they’re doing the actual task, while they are looking at live data from their own project. This is the point at which the choice will make the most sense.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示

Answer 7

I agree. It would be good to have a warning that the references are they are out of order, but if the warning is denied then the reference should be treated as valid and linked.

Out of order references also occur in parallel passage references. Commonly this happens when a section in one Gospel references a combination of different verses in another Gospel that are in a different order.

舊文章 - 以原文顯示