PDA

View Full Version : Weird results from Strong's search



vr8ce
07-23-2009, 11:04 PM
BW 7.0.020d.6 on XP

I so seldom do a Strong's search I always have to look it up to remind myself how to do it. According to BW's help, .<word>@<number> finds all instances where "word" translates "number," while .<word>@!<number> finds all instances where "word" translates something other than "number".

To start, I did an "l OT" to limit my search to Old Testament, search to NAU, then did a
.justice@!04941
to find all of the instances where justice was translated from something other than mishpat. But, the 128 hits includes a large number of instances where the translation was from mishpat (Exo 23:6, e.g.).

I then did a
.justice@04941
Lo and behold, I got 127 hits that appear to be all the same verses (both have 126 verses, just one less hit). Thus, BW appears to be telling me that the same verses that translate justice from mishpat also translate justice from something other than mishpat. I'm almost positive that's not right. :)

So, where did I and/or BW go wrong? I've tried it with and without the "extend to other words" options flag; the results above are with it off, but it's not any different with it on (135 hits instead of 128, but both still have all the verses).

Thanks!

Adelphos
07-24-2009, 10:19 AM
...Lo and behold, I got 127 hits that appear to be all the same verses (both have 126 verses, just one less hit)...

I get 126 & 117 respectively. BW8 8.0.011y.1

vr8ce
07-24-2009, 10:45 AM
I get 126 & 117 respectively. BW8 8.0.011y.1

Verses or hits? But, either way, the numbers are still plainly wrong (or at least unexpected, given the queries). There are only 126 verses in the OT that have justice period, so there's no way that 117 of them overlap, which I confirmed by looking at the first 30 matches or so.

Adelphos
07-24-2009, 11:15 AM
Verses or hits? But, either way, the numbers are still plainly wrong (or at least unexpected, given the queries). There are only 126 verses in the OT that have justice period, so there's no way that 117 of them overlap, which I confirmed by looking at the first 30 matches or so.

Well, either I did something wrong the first time or BW changed on me, for now I get 9 hits in 10 verses on the NOT search. I still get 117 verses, 119 hits on the other.

I think the first time was because I copied your searches into BW and the copy picked up hidden but extraneous characters.

Anyway, I've confirmed the above searches several times now, so they are the ones you should consider as genuine.

vr8ce
07-24-2009, 12:16 PM
I would love to consider them genuine, if only I could get my BW to do that. But thanks for the confirmation that something is wrong in BW7 at least; I'll email support. If you get bored today, I'd love those 10 verses. :) Thanks, Scott!

Adelphos
07-24-2009, 12:48 PM
I would love to consider them genuine, if only I could get my BW to do that. But thanks for the confirmation that something is wrong in BW7 at least; I'll email support. If you get bored today, I'd love those 10 verses. :) Thanks, Scott!

Well, I'm not bored, but this gave me a good excuse to use Verse List Organizer, for in order to easily copy the search results to the clipboard, I merely imported them to VLM, saved the file, then used VLO to copy all the verse references to the clipboard. And here you are...

NAU Exo 23:2
NAU Deu 16:20 (2 hits)
NAU Deu 33:21
NAU 2Sa 15:4
NAU Est 1:13
NAU Psa 82:3
NAU Pro 8:15
NAU Pro 20:8
NAU Isa 10:2

EDIT: I didn't see that you could copy just the verses from BW, but you still don't get the version prefix when you do that.

vr8ce
07-25-2009, 12:51 AM
You're the man, thanks, Scott. I received confirmation from support today that it is indeed a bug, but apparently an unfixable one. So I have to buy the upgrade to BW8 if I want Strong searches to work. Nice.

Adelphos
07-25-2009, 08:28 AM
You're the man, thanks, Scott. I received confirmation from support today that it is indeed a bug, but apparently an unfixable one. So I have to buy the upgrade to BW8 if I want Strong searches to work. Nice.

You will find that when you upgrade to 8 that you don't know how you ever lived without it. BW8 is the most extensive upgrade ever, and not only is it dirt cheap for what you get, but it is a major advance in Bible software with regard to its capabilities.

Precha1
07-25-2009, 12:40 PM
You will find that when you upgrade to 8 that you don't know how you ever lived without it. BW8 is the most extensive upgrade ever, and not only is it dirt cheap for what you get, but it is a major advance in Bible software with regard to its capabilities.

I agree totally. The support by the BW staff is also unparalleled IMHO.

vr8ce
07-25-2009, 03:01 PM
Yeah, I know. As a user since BW5, this is the longest I've waited for an upgrade. But several things are in play here — I bought a Mac last year, and although I have to run Fusion w/ XP for work, I've tried to keep everything else on the Mac side, and BW is the only non-work program left.

I also hate having to upgrade in order to get a (non-trivial) bug fixed. I don't like it when MS does it, I don't like it when Apple does it, I don't like it when anyone does it.

Nevertheless, as someone else pointed out, BW as a company/group of people is about the best thing going, in any software category. And BW is the best value/usability in this particular category.

So here I sit on the fence. :)

Thanks again thanks for the list, I appreciate the help.

Ruben Gomez
07-25-2009, 03:33 PM
Actually, if I am not mistaken, I reported this bug a few months ago, and was told that since BW8 was about to be released, all the programming effort was focusing on the new version. Fair enough. They did tell me that they would see if they could fix it later on, but they made no promises.

This is a particularly hard call for BW's staff. I understand there are limited resources and all that. However, since this is a functionality BW7 originally had and somewhat got broken along the way, IMHO it would be a good tech support move (from a user's point of view) to fix it.

I have since upgraded to BW8, but users of BW7 should have the opportunity to run these types of searches as they were intended. Don't get me wrong. I am not complaining, I am simply offering my honest and respectful opinion on the matter.

Regards,

Adelphos
07-25-2009, 03:57 PM
I have since upgraded to BW8, but users of BW7 should have the opportunity to run these types of searches as they were intended. Don't get me wrong. I am not complaining, I am simply offering my honest and respectful opinion on the matter.

I certainly can't speak for Mike or BW, but I suspect that once he reads this thread he will fix it right away.

vr8ce
07-25-2009, 06:22 PM
I certainly can't speak for Mike or BW, but I suspect that once he reads this thread he will fix it right away.
That would be great, but the support person was pretty clear that it wasn't going to be fixed in BW7.

And, just to be clear lest I left the wrong impression to anyone before, my being on the fence about BW8 vs. ahem, that Mac software :), has nothing to do with this issue. I do understand the issues regarding resource allocation (although I agree with the previous poster; this is a pretty serious bug and IMO should be fixed in BW7). My being on the fence is deciding whether I want to continue to work in the Windows world on my Mac, or whether I want to work on the Mac side. Ironically, it's made more difficult because that other place doesn't have nearly as nice of a 30-day guarantee as BW does. :)

BW in general, Mike in particular, has the best attitude of probably any company, of any kind, I've ever done business with. It is hard to leave that, especially when it's accompanied by a great product. If only they'd see the light and port to the Mac. :D

Adelphos
07-25-2009, 06:33 PM
That would be great, but the support person was pretty clear that it wasn't going to be fixed in BW7.

I'll bet you a cold one that the guy in tech support is wrong. :cool: