Accordance and Their Crippled Modules

[Fabian]

There is absolutely no kudos to Accordance! You wanna be the world leading Bible software, but what you deliver is often only a shame.

 

Tools

 

• Images are missing. 
• Images instead of tables.
• Images instead of searchable words. BDB.
• TOC are missing
• Appendix are missing
• Lots of missing linked material. I wrote since years you have to automatize Bible refs which has a f or ff. But still I find in the laste modules verse refs like: IEKAT

 

• If I report 5 corrections with the same issue in a module I writhe then: THIS IS A GENERAL PROBLEM IN THIS MODULE. But you only make corrections on the 5 I made a report. Do you have problems to read?
• Since years I write you should support all German Bible books not only a few. But you don't listen. Thats why the IEKAT has then not all linked. 
• Older tools are not updated if a new module is coming which the older refers to it

 

 

 

 

Bibles

• Notes are missing. Elberfelder 1984
• Deuterocanonical books are missing. Luther12, Statenvertaling. 

 

All what I hear from you is. We have received only this material. But why has then another Software all material?

 

Fabian

 

[markusvonkaenel]

Glücklich ist, wer Bücher kauft 😀

[mhanel]

5 hours ago, Fabian said:

 

 

All what I hear from you is. We have received only this material. But why has then another Software all material?

 

Fabian

 

 

I get it, but there's something about honey than vinegar. I totally understand your frustration and high expectations.

 

But at the end of the day, Accordance is a business and customer service is part of that. Your post points to places where improvement is possible, but when I read it, it doesn't motivate me to want to help, it automatically puts me on the defensive. I heard the same thing with other software too. Could it be possible Accordance doesn't get all the same materials as other companies? Could it be that other companies employ more people to put that "extra" data back in? I certainly have no idea and neither would Accordance. All they know is their process. When you have thousands of resources, it's going to be virtually impossible to always keep them up perfectly. The same is true with the Other Guys too. And sometimes they even cannot change errors/problems they have reported without permission from the license holders. It's all likely a more complicated situation than you're giving them credit for.

[Paul Meiklejohn]

4 hours ago, mhanel said:

It's all likely a more complicated situation than you're giving them credit for.

Yes, and we must. remember that there are many more things that are great about Accordance, It meets 95% of my research needs.  The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.  The customer service we get is simply outstanding.  Thank you for this amazing piece of software.

[jarcher]

One of the things I've appreciated about the Accordance forums in the past is that there is a general disposition of people on the forums that they disciples of Jesus before they are consumers or customers.

 

I hope that that remains the case.

[markusvonkaenel]

5 hours ago, jarcher said:

One of the things I've appreciated about the Accordance forums in the past is that there is a general disposition of people on the forums that they disciples of Jesus before they are consumers or customers.

 

I hope that that remains the case.

Please let us not moralize here.

We buy a product and are expecting highest quality. Quality has to be defined. Fabian is expecting more than I. And I know, that he is sometimes a helping hand for Accordance when it comes to German texts. He is expecting more than I.

And second: he speaks German. So it sometimes difficult for us to find the wright wording.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by markusvonkaenel

[Fabian]

I would love if the Bibles are complete. 

CEV with apocrypha. They was added in 1999 according to https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/

The full Basis Bibel as they are now released

The apocrypha to the STATEN

Japanese Bibles with the Ruby 

Chinese Bible with underscore proper names

 

etc. etc. Lots of them I mentioned earlier.

 

 

[Fabian]

On 5/29/2021 at 11:16 AM, Fabian said:

I would love if the Bibles are complete. 

CEV with apocrypha. They was added in 1999 according to https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/

The full Basis Bibel as they are now released

The apocrypha to the STATEN

Japanese Bibles with the Ruby 

Chinese Bible with underscore proper names

 

etc. etc. Lots of them I mentioned earlier.

 

 

Can we have this. 

[garydcollier]

On 3/1/2021 at 1:55 AM, markusvonkaenel said:

Please let us not moralize here.

We buy a product and are expecting highest quality. Quality has to be defined. Fabian is expecting more than I. And I know, that he is sometimes a helping hand for Accordance when it comes to German texts. He is expecting more than I.

And second: he speaks German. So it sometimes difficult for us to find the wright wording.

 

 

I fully agree with this comment and want to add my appreciation to Fabian's original post (a year ago).  It was not at all offensive;  it was more a blunt and to-the-point call for Accordance to live up to its reputation of being a (if not the) top-tier Bible software program in the world--to live up to its reputation and history of excellence.  If some want to bring Jesus into this (who held nothing back from those professing to be the best of the best), or Paul maybe (who apparently called Peter a hypocrite to his face--I guess, maybe, Jesus and Paul just weren't very Christ-like), then maybe the Accordance men and women (all of whom are very sharp and capable people) already know how to handle just criticism.  Maybe they even agree with it!  So, maybe it would be helpful if Accordance could make appropriate replies as to timelines for when such things might be addressed, or whether they are even on a work-schedule yet.  A published work timeline would be useful.  I don't have Fabian's specific concerns, but I have a few of my own, and I know and appreciate the frustration.  And so along with all others in this thread, we all are and want to be supportive of Accordance and of their own frustrations.

Edited March 17, 2022 by garydcollier
grammar correction

[Erhard]

5 hours ago, garydcollier said:

So, maybe it would be helpful if Accordance could make appropriate replies as to timelines for when such things might be addressed, or whether they are even on a work-schedule yet.  A published work timeline would be useful.  I don't have Fabian's specific concerns, but I have a few of my own, and I know and appreciate the frustration.  And so along with all others in this thread, we all are and want to be supportive of Accordance and of their own frustrations.

Having some kind of acknowledgment and time frame would really be appreciated. Sometimes it just seems like the issues that are noted fall into a black hole. I think this is likely not the case, but it feels like it.

[Daniel L]

 

Regarding Fabian's complaint about modules missing parts from their printed versions, @R. Mansfield has defended this practice in a later thread. I don't know if that was the first time or not indicating that nothing will be done.

 

In general, if Accordance has no intention or plan to fix/add something that's been repeatedly requested, it should always be made clear. Otherwise, people hold on to false hopes and expectations, which leads to negative feelings. For my own well-being, I've learned to have almost no expectations about Accordance's progress.

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Daniel L said:

In general, if Accordance has no intention or plan to fix/add something that's been repeatedly requested, it should always be made clear. 

 

There are very few features or content that would fall into the "no, not ever" category. And, incidentally, I've seen a handful of "no, not ever" items that actually came about eventually. 

 

The reality is that we don't often know ourselves due to a variety of factors. 

 

Sometimes it's an issue of negotiating rights--which I've seen take a few days, and I've also seen take a few years. There is a publisher of significant titles I won't name who refuses to license their content to any Bible software platform. They feel like that it would eat at the sales of their print publications. The historical evidence would show something much different--that, in fact, a  market is broadened when digital editions are made available, and we send royalty payments out on a regular basis. But some folks are very old school in their thinking. However, in regard to this company, who has given us an adamant "no!" on multiple occasions, we have not given up on them. In fact, we contact them a minimum of once a year, usually at SBL, to talk to the owners of the company directly. And we will not stop doing that until they allow us to distribute their content. 

 

Sometimes, it's a simple issue of priorities. One of the requests made in this thread is for the Contemporary English Version apocrypha. Now, I've not been part of any conversation about this request, so I'll just speculate and use the CEV apocrypha as an example. I think it'd be great to have the CEV apocrypha in Accordance, but how great of a priority should this be when measured against finite restrictions of developer hours to produce content? [For clarification, note that we're talking about the Contemporary English Version, CEV (wikipedia, Accordance) and not the Common English Bible, CEB (wikipedia, Accordance) that does have the Apocrypha in Accordance.] The CEV is a perfectly fine translation, but I don't personally know anyone who uses it as a primary Bible version. Sadly, it never caught on and gained a wide audience. That's not a knock against it; it's just a reality. We made the recent Legacy Standard Bible update a priority because it has received lots of acceptance and there is great demand for it. The CEV apocrypha has only had one request here in the forums to my knowledge. It's not to say that it won't happen, but there's not been any great push from users for this content compared to other content--we have to pick and choose. 

 

Incidentally, in recent months, @Mark Allison has proven to be your huckleberry for obtaining biblical content, obscure or popular. Maybe he can look into what it would take to add the CEV apocrypha. 

 

At the same time, we often release something like the recent Selected Works of Origen, not because we think we will make our investment of time and money back on it but because it adds to the overall value of the platform. In fact, I can easily say that our more popular content ends up paying for the more obscure (and often scholarly) content that we make available.

 

All of the above can be applied to bug fixes and feature requests, too. If there's a bug affecting everyone, it gets higher attention. 

 

If it makes anyone feel any better, keep in mind that those of us working for the company use the software, too. Most of us were users before we became employees. I have my own content and feature requests that I've made over the years (including a specific Bible translation that I personally want in Accordance!) that haven't materialized yet either. And I've also made other requests over the years that have been made available eventually.

 

As a bright spot of hope, from what I understand, the newer website architecture we moved to a couple of years ago would allow us to put pre-release titles on our site for you to purchase ahead of time without your cards being charged until it was released. We have a few other priorities for the website to take care of first, but I'm sure this will be there eventually.

 

All that to say, it would be very difficult to say we have no intention to add or fix something. In fact, I would say that there's no bug in Accordance that we have no intention to fix. Some are more difficult to fix than others, and some affect more people than others. Everything is triage because resources are always limited.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Daniel L said:

Regarding Fabian's complaint about modules missing parts from their printed versions, @R. Mansfield has defended this practice in a later thread.

 

I don't know if defended is the right word. I may have offered some explanation. Personally, I believe that if content is available in a print version, it ought to also be in the Accordance version, and most of our folks would feel the same way.

[JohnABarnett]

On 2/28/2021 at 5:32 PM, jarcher said:

One of the things I've appreciated about the Accordance forums in the past is that there is a general disposition of people on the forums that they disciples of Jesus before they are consumers or customers.

 

I hope that that remains the case.

 

My wife and I have been watching a British show called "Doc Martin," about an abrasive but highly accomplished London surgeon who suddenly develops an aversion to the sight of blood. He moves to a small coastal town to start a General Practice, where his stunningly inhuman abrasiveness towards his patients and the townsfolk contrasts with his often lifesaving superior skill as a doctor. They love him when he saves their lives, and they can't stand him when he's abrasive.

 

We haven't quite reached the latest season, but a central plot line of the show is this doctor's relationship with a woman who is at first put off by him but develops conflicted feelings about him, anger and frustration, admiration and affection. 

 

The show can be hard to watch because the viewer feels this powerful conflict as well.

 

Threads like this make me think of Doc Martin.

[Rev. Dr. Timothy M. Hall]

6 hours ago, JohnABarnett said:

a British show called "Doc Martin,"

I love that show, very good TV.

[Paul Meiklejohn]

On 4/17/2022 at 4:24 PM, JohnABarnett said:

My wife and I have been watching a British show called "Doc Martin,"

 

Trust me; as a Brit... Doc Martin sums up true British Culture... Brilliant.

[Fabian]

On 3/18/2022 at 5:27 PM, R. Mansfield said:

The CEV apocrypha has only had one request here in the forums to my knowledge. It's not to say that it won't happen, but there's not been any great push from users for this content compared to other content--we have to pick and choose. 

Two.

 

On 3/18/2022 at 5:27 PM, R. Mansfield said:

Incidentally, in recent months, @Mark Allison has proven to be your huckleberry for obtaining biblical content, obscure or popular. Maybe he can look into what it would take to add the CEV apocrypha. 

That would be great.

[Mark Allison]

I'm in the process of contacting the American Bible Society for the CEV files. I'll keep you updated. 

 

BTW, one of our goals this year is to add apocryphal content to any of our Bibles that are missing it (working on the Statenvertaling Bible right now). Another goal is to add key number tagging to any Bibles for which it is available.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Mark Allison said:

BTW, one of our goals this year is to add apocryphal content to any of our Bibles that are missing it (working on the Statenvertaling Bible right now). Another goal is to add key number tagging to any Bibles for which it is available.

 

Proposed new slogan—

Accordance: putting the BIBLE back into BIBLE SOFTWARE.

[Mark Allison]

On 3/18/2022 at 12:29 PM, R. Mansfield said:

 

I don't know if defended is the right word. I may have offered some explanation. Personally, I believe that if content is available in a print version, it ought to also be in the Accordance version, and most of our folks would feel the same way.

Absolutely. And we appreciate our users holding us to a high standard. 

[Erhard]

53 minutes ago, R. Mansfield said:

Proposed new slogan—

Accordance: putting the BIBLE back into BIBLE SOFTWARE.

A big AMEN to that  👍

[ukfraser]

6 hours ago, Mark Allison said:

BTW, one of our goals this year is to add apocryphal content to any of our Bibles that are missing it...

And i live in hope that oup will see the light soon so we get the jewish annotated Apocrypha to complete the set of excellent study bible notes. 
 

;o) 

Edited April 21, 2022 by ukfraser