Thanks for the updated info... but...

[KevinPurcell]

First off, thanks for the updated info from @Michele whom I understand is very closely connected to the owner of Accordance @Troy

 

This kind of info is helpful to us as users who hope Accordance has a future after a long wait for updates to iOS, Android, and Accordance 14.

 

However, I wish we could have interacted in that announcement to ask questions or share our thoughts with you. The post is great, but there's no interaction since comments are turned off. So I'm posting this so we can engage a little with that post.

 

 

My thoughts...

1. I hope you will make Accordance the fast, rock-solid Bible study powerhouse it was. Lately, Accordance 14.09 has been very unreliable on Sonoma 14.5. Others don't seem to have this problem, but I remember a time I could post concerns and get team members like Mark Allison and Rick Mansfield and often Helen Brown chiming in with helpful tips.

 

Question:

- Is it possible to have upper level management show up more so we can at least know you have our backs as your customers?

- Could you instruct the rest of the company to at least spend an hour a day here to help users?

 

2. Accordance's current state on mobile (iOS and Android) is very far behind the competition, including 3-4 other companies. This should be priority #2 and ideally something to work on along with #1. If the programming team isn't big enough, it should be expanded.

 

Questions:

- When can we expect to see Android get an update and return to the Play Store? (I know you can't give dates. But how about time frame like "by end of year" or "early 2025" etc

- When can we get an update to iOS?  3 mos ago, we got an update that was mostly about in-app purchases. Cool. But that mostly serves the company. Before that it was 9 mos ago. By comparison other bible apps from the simplest to the most complex get regular updates monthly with bug fixes and new features.

 

3. Cloud sync of prefs, files, notes, highlights etc will be wonderful. It's always been my biggest complain about Accordance in comparison to other applications. Good on ya for working on this. I hope we see it soon, but think it should be 3rd on the list after 1 and 2.

 

4. Web version is nice to have but way down my list of priorities if I was making the decisions.

 

Questions...

What will the Web version include?

- syncing of files, prefs, notes, highlights?

- how much of the desktop or mobile version can we expect at launch?

 

I offer these with the greatest hope that we will see Accordance improve. The Bible study world needs a strong Accordance to keep the other players moving forward. We really only have 2 and a 3rd that's good but not as powerful as either of the top 2 powerhouses.

 

 

[cweber]

Perhaps a survey can be conducted. My vote is stability, library management first and a wish list for an API I can use Python with. I am also not overly concerned about cloud at this time. 
 

I feel the pain from outsourcing work, the outcome mentioned is all too common today and I’ve been on the developers end pressured to quickly fix the mess leftover (still working on this).

 

I appreciate the management update and it’s good to hear the desire to keep it going. Frequent management updates would be great even if closed to comments as posts like this can serve that need.

 

[Kristin]

8 minutes ago, cweber said:

Perhaps a survey can be conducted

 

That is a good idea. Here are my top things:
1. no more note corruption

2. ability to export notes

3. no more highlight corruption

4. no more forum deletions except when a forum violates the forum guidelines (as someone mentioned before, constructive criticism is not a forum violation, yet that has been the primary reason for deletion, from what I can see.)
 

12 minutes ago, cweber said:

I am also not overly concerned about cloud at this time. 

 

Same here. I had originally bought v.14 since I had (mistakenly) thought that v.14 was finally addressing the note corruption, and also since it would allow Accordance to be on my mom's Chromebook. However, at this point, I really don't care about the Cloud until the corruption issues are addressed and personal data like notes can be exported.

 

50 minutes ago, KevinPurcell said:

I offer these with the greatest hope that we will see Accordance improve. The Bible study world needs a strong Accordance to keep the other players moving forward. We really only have 2 and a 3rd that's good but not as powerful as either of the top 2 powerhouses.

 

Same here!
 

[Kristin]

Since comments are turned off on the most recent pinned thread, I guess I will add my question to this thread.

 

Nathan wrote on "A Reminder About Our Forum Guidelines" 

(I will bold the part about my question and the bold is NOT original)

Quote

 

These forums exist as a place for Accordance Users to discuss Accordance features, to share tips and tricks for getting the most out of Accordance, to help solve one another's technical problems, to offer constructive criticism for how the program could be improved, to list features and texts you would like to see made available, and to discuss any aspect of Accordance use which may be of interest to other users.

While it is generally our policy to allow our Users a great deal of freedom to express concerns and frustrations when they arise, we will occasionally take moderation action when discussions devolve past the point of productive conversation, or when posts go against our community guidelines.

As a reminder: Content directly attacking the character of a person or group, publicly or privately, is prohibited, as are argumentative or inflammatory posts (i.e. trolling), political statements, and cultural commentary. We also do not prohibit occasional references to competing Bible software platforms, but please refrain from hyperlinking or promoting competitors’ products.

 

 

So I guess I have two questions:

1. As mentioned above, the forum deletions have been comments which are "constructive criticism." So according to the forum guidelines, these posts should not have been deleted.

2. I think I need clarification about the word "occasionally." From my understanding of the word, when Rick was moderating forum posts were "occasionally" deleted, but the past year deletions are what I (and others) would call "frequent."

3. Does the comments being turned off on the two threads mean that Accordance doesn't want users to "discuss any aspect of Accordance use which may be of interest to other users"? 

Thank you.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Continue to post your feedback in this thread (that'd be more consolidated then starting new threads). We welcome the discussions we're seeing in this thread.

 

We kept the other two threads locked since they are "support-article style" announcements. We welcome your discussions though, and this thread has been very constructive and useful.

[JohnABarnett]

(edited by OP July 18, 2024)

 

I should clarify that my comments about what I was calling Accordance Cloud are primarily about the benefit of being able to use the same files across platforms. My understanding is "syncing" refers to reproducing files and any changes to them on different platforms. These two are not the same, but syncing, so long as it actually works reliably, is at least a step toward confidence working on multiple platforms.

 

It helps to hear the explanation of why the cloud version ran into serious trouble, and a third party company wasn't able to fulfill their part in the project. Why haven't we been told this all along? or at least something that would give us a window on the serious delay ("delay" is hardly an apt word given how long it's been).  One major part of the building frustration has been the cone of silence as to why it was taking so long.

 

[ Edited to add:  Michael Gilbert has pointed us to where we were indeed given some of the information in the paragraph above. I was wrong, and I both owe and offer the community and Accordance a sincere apology for posting as if it were not the case. I'm absolutely sure I had read the statements he mentions, I simply forgot them. ]

 

I've still gotta say, this latest statement makes no acknowledgement of having accepted customers money in the fall of 2022 for significant features not yet delivered mid-summer of 2024. So to me, this is a partial communication, but it is a continued avoidance of any reference to what for me is the gorilla in the room. Apparently I'm the only one who feels this way? Is it so hard to freely offer a formal apology for having done this?

 

I confess I continue to be disheartened at Accordance management's approach to all this, though at least I've been given some reasonable explanation why things have been "delayed."

 

I too wish Accordance well despite my disillusionment.

Edited July 18 by JohnABarnett
I was wrong on one point

[Solly]

The greatest concern I have observed about software of all types is that of stability. Stability should take precedence over new features! After the features promised with version 14 are finished, I suggest attending to issues noted in highlights, notes, and components that have been less stable since version 12. The programming side of the company has a very difficult task because the base operating systems constantly change and will break parts of the Accordance software that had been stable--it reminds me of the ol' whack-a-mole game!

 

Module development is akin to herding cats. I have very specific interests that may represent a small of proportion of the store offerings. Yet the store may offer texts and tools that are extremely popular to other folk who provide a bulk of the purchases, but have little interest to me. Serving an audience with many interests is going to be frustrating--the cats just can't won't cooperate!

 

Communication is often a mine field. The message is often not properly received and  assumptions not germane to the topic or even untrue to the situation are made. We jump astride our favorite hobby horse and charge into the arena to set things aright, causing irreparable damage in the process.

 

My hobby horse runs much more slowly these days, and I have become more interested in commonality than vanquishing error. May we be gentle and gracious with one another, may we help one another grow in using the tools we already have, and may we embrace the wonder of diversity we find in our community as we work together to bring these skills and interests to the study and exploration of the Word.

 

Peace,

 

--Joseph 

[Kristin]

2 hours ago, Solly said:

Stability should take precedence over new features! After the features promised with version 14 are finished, I suggest attending to issues noted in highlights, notes, and components that have been less stable since version 12.

 

Very true, and I wish this had been stated in the management message.

[kennete]

Web version is my top priority as a linux user. I bought Accordance 14 to get it. Posted October 13, 2022 "Accordance Bible Software is coming to the CLOUD! Later this year, as part of your Accordance 14 purchase, you can access your personal Accordance Library from any web browser."

[robrecht]

10 hours ago, JohnABarnett said:

I've still gotta say, this latest statement makes no acknowledgement of having accepted customers money in the fall of 2022 for significant features not yet delivered mid-summer of 2024. So to me, this is a partial communication, but it is a continued avoidance of any reference to what for me is the gorilla in the room. Apparently I'm the only one who feels this way? Is it so hard to freely offer a formal apology for having done this?

 

... I too wish Accordance well despite my disillusionment.

 

I'm sure you are not the only person who feels this way.

 

Although I personally did not buy Accordance 14 in order to acquire any of these specific features, I did think it was unethical to keep selling it while it was performing so very poorly. It was 'performing' horrendously for me anyway so I went back to Accordance 13, but it was performing better for others so there's some measure of 'subjectivity' or 'individual case experience' in this evaluation. For me stability is the number one priority.

 

I hope Accordance will speak to your specific concern and those of others, especially when it comes to ethical questions. At the very least I do believe they would refund your money on a case-by-case basis.

[ukfraser]

We are a diverse lot!

 

although pre-purchasing, I still havent downloaded 14. Initially because of the reported issues, Im typically a late adopter anyway. If it aint broke dont fix it.

 

Since it has become stable I still havent downloaded it as not really sure I will use the additional usable features. 
 

as to web, will this provide better functionality on the iPad?

 

I wait to see. 
 

i think my number one is keeping sets up to date with latest releases that have been requested rather than getting new resources that no one has.  JPS has one volume of psalms out and more in the pipeline. We got a flurry of orthodox releases from svs press. But its good that Tyndale is on its way as this is a much requested resource. 
 

as i have posted elsewhere, my credit card is sleeping peacefully undisturbed by dreams of Accordance.

Edited July 16 by ukfraser

[Kristin]

1 hour ago, ukfraser said:

If it aint broke dont fix it.

 

That's how I feel about v.13. The highlight corruption AND note corruption ALL started with v.13. Personally I had no issues at all with v.12. In fact, it worked so well that when they came out with v.13, I had no concerns and simply downloaded it assuming that Accordance had already thoroughly done quality control before release. So obviously I regret that.

The good news is though, v.13 brought so many issues, that I decided to not download v.14 until I had assurance it was as stable as v.12. And here we are years later...

I might be wrong, but it appears that with both v.13 and v.14, Accordance rushed the release of both of those versions to meet a deadline, and oddly in order to meet the deadline what they decided to cut was quality control before release.
 

[Sean Nelson]

15 hours ago, Kristin said:

Since comments are turned off on the most recent pinned thread, I guess I will add my question to this thread.

 

Nathan wrote on "A Reminder About Our Forum Guidelines" 

(I will bold the part about my question and the bold is NOT original)

 

So I guess I have two questions:

1. As mentioned above, the forum deletions have been comments which are "constructive criticism." So according to the forum guidelines, these posts should not have been deleted.

2. I think I need clarification about the word "occasionally." From my understanding of the word, when Rick was moderating forum posts were "occasionally" deleted, but the past year deletions are what I (and others) would call "frequent."

3. Does the comments being turned off on the two threads mean that Accordance doesn't want users to "discuss any aspect of Accordance use which may be of interest to other users"? 

Thank you.

While I won't be able to answer all the questions in this thread (most are outside of my wheelhouse), as someone who has helped out from time to time with the management of the forums, I can offer an answer to these.
 

1. As mentioned above, the forum deletions have been comments which are "constructive criticism." So according to the forum guidelines, these posts should not have been deleted.

 

Forum threads which have been locked have not been locked due to any constructive criticism contained within, but as mentioned in the announcement, moderation action is taken if threads devolve past the point of productive conversation, or when posts go against our community guidelines. As near I as I can tell from reviewing our moderation information, recent moderation actions have included locking three threads and hiding one. Upon review, two of the three locked threads were unlocked and are still active, while the third remains locked due to the above mentioned guidelines. The hidden thread was a double post, and its duplicate remains active. (Edit & Correction: One additional thread has been hidden because it was a spam account.)

 

2. I think I need clarification about the word "occasionally." From my understanding of the word, when Rick was moderating forum posts were "occasionally" deleted, but the past year deletions are what I (and others) would call "frequent."

 

As mentioned above, we only intend to take moderation action when threads devolve past the point of productive conversation, or when posts go against our community guidelines. We don't anticipate this being a frequent occurrence, so "occasionally" seems like as good a word as any.

 

3. Does the comments being turned off on the two threads mean that Accordance doesn't want users to "discuss any aspect of Accordance use which may be of interest to other users"? 

 

No. As Nathan mentions above, the comments are turned off simply because these posts are official pinned announcements. They are not intended to be traditional threads. This does not prevent users from discussing these announcements however, as this thread demonstrates.

[robrecht]

6 minutes ago, Sean Nelson said:

1. As mentioned above, the forum deletions have been comments which are "constructive criticism." So according to the forum guidelines, these posts should not have been deleted.

 

Forum threads which have been locked have not been locked due to any constructive criticism contained within, but as mentioned in the announcement, moderation action is taken if threads devolve past the point of productive conversation, or when posts go against our community guidelines. As near I as I can tell from reviewing our moderation information, recent moderation actions have included locking three threads and hiding one. Upon review, two of the three locked threads were unlocked and are still active, while the third remains locked due to the above mentioned guidelines. The hidden thread was a double post, and its duplicate remains active. ...

 

"Productive conversation" is rather subjective and thus not really responsive to the question, a question from a highly articulate and polite user who obviously disagrees, a question that otherwise would not have been asked. Can you be more specific about which criticisms you or others did not consider constructive, which guidelines were broken by whom and how? I appreciate the attempt to be more transparent, but a bit of substance would be helpful here.

[WhiteWings]

I upgraded mostly for the cloud option.

And to support Accordance.

 

And that last part concerns me more lately than the lack of cloud.

A while (month?) ago I got a email how hard it has been on Bible software companies.  Nowhere it's written directly or indirectly but since then I've the feeling that Accordance is in finacial bad weather. And that makes me think twice buying today's Anchor Yale offering for $999. And to continue this hopefully 100% unfounded doom and gloom post, it also crossed my mind that's the reason cloud takes so long.

Edited July 16 by WhiteWings

[JohnABarnett]

2 hours ago, robrecht said:

 

I'm sure you are not the only person who feels this way.

 

...

 

I hope Accordance will speak to your specific concern and those of others, especially when it comes to ethical questions. At the very least I do believe they would refund your money on a case-by-case basis.

 

Thanks, robrecht.

 

I should add that I am way more interested in an apology than any refund. In fact I would refuse any offer of a refund. It's not the money. It's the sense all this long time of being defrauded in a practical (not legal) way. I am absolutely sure this was not intentional, but what has been intentional all along until now is not being transparent about what's going on, and not owning up to the fact that at least for those waiting for promised features, they have paid up front in good faith, but have for so long not received what they paid for.

 

The pre-sale money was not a huge amount. I flushed it long ago, and I'm happy for Accordance that they've received a bit of money to help them along their way.

 

But the only words I've received from management are what has been posted publicly, "some people have had some problems," and now "we have been a bit too quiet about Accordance’s plans for the future and the current state of our development." The word "bit" is in there for a reason, to minimize any sense that an apology might be appropriate. And not a word about the length of time between when people have paid and still not received. As I said before, is it so hard to apologize to those who legitimately feel wronged?

 

Do not confuse this with a lack of forgiveness on my part. If you knew me, you would recognize this is a sincere statement. My focus is on asking them to do the right thing now; to do right is for their own good . I suppose they don't because they don't feel they have done anything wrong. Clearly their point of view is not the same as my own.

 

I confess as a 69-year-old man who remembers how society often used to behave, it would have been second nature to apologize. It's not such a traumatic, unthinkable thing if it comes from your heart. I suppose everyone is so caught up in potential legal ramifications these days that no company would dare apologize unless it was to their legal advantage to do so, a rare case.

 

Hey, maybe I'm just an older guy who's making a mountain out of molehill. Times have changed. I will not post on this any more, there is no sense in beating a dead horse.

Edited July 16 by JohnABarnett

[robrecht]

Agree completely, except if people don't continue to post on this issue and others like it, it is less likely that Accordance upper management will ever understand the very point you're making. I'm not quite 69, but I still believe in learning from my elders!

[Mike Atnip]

Well, hey, for all the holes still in Accordance software, Bible software has come a loooooong ways. I remember using one of these, even though it was given to me; I didn't shell out $200!

My priorities:

1. Note stability and syncing.

2. Highlight export.

3. Better ability to create user modules.

 

Only 199 dollars.pdf

[Donald Cobb]

Re a survey, I would echo most of the points made above:

 

1. Reliable syncing over platforms

2. Solving the long-standing issues with notes and (especially) highlights corruption

3. Improving the capabilities in iOS (for which I, personally, would be willing to pay a little added extra fee)

4. More systematic integration of correction reports, in particular in original language resources, for which accuracy is paramount in connection with academic study

 

The message from management addressed some of these, so thank you for this.

 

I'll mention another point separately, since it's a little outside of the actual Accordance application:

 

A number of resources have been suggested over the last year or two, and reiterated as @Dr. Nathan Parker has tried to make an official record of them. However, as others have pointed out, few of these have actually been retained, whereas several others which I hadn't seen requested have been coming out steadily. I understand the need to balance out material that is helpful for the non-specialist with more in-depth academic works, and that the latter will always be financially less lucrative. But aside the two works on Hebrew mentioned by the management (paradoxically too specialized—and too expensive—for my uses), there's been little for those working in academic fields. For this reason, I've been ordering less over the last several months, not because of any lack of confidence in Accordance but, simply, because there are fewer resources I think I can find useful.

 

Thanks for hearing us out, and thank you for all you do to make Accordance a blessings for its users and for the Church!

 

[KevinPurcell]

There's a bit of a catch-22 situation because Accordance will need more funds to invest in improvements that are coming faster. However, the recent failure to make good on promises makes many of us leery of investing more money in the program.

[ReformedDoc]

The other thing the other guys have been on top of is correcting & updating, books, bibles & other resources all the time, Accordance would do well in following the path. 

[cweber]

There’s fundamental differences in developing for Cloud solutions, security a major concern, and desktop operating systems and mobile devices. That’s a big ask of a small team.
 

There must be prioritisation and allocation of budget to earnings. I use iPad and windows OS, but as a prior Unix administrator in a previous life often am drawn to Linux. The cloud is platform neutral. However, the cloud has been expensive for companies exploring Azure services unwisely for example, it takes serious effort to implement correctly and efficiently.

 

Developing for multiple systems is expensive on time and budget, and distracting on priorities that might matter to most.

 

I imagine a single dedicated focus on web only subscriptions model could be the ultimate solution and retire desktop development. I don’t even like Windows OS 😀

 

[Kristin]

9 minutes ago, KevinPurcell said:

here's a bit of a catch-22 situation because Accordance will need more funds to invest in improvements that are coming faster. However, the recent failure to make good on promises makes many of us leery of investing more money in the program.

 

 

I agree, and this was an entirely avoidable situation. It just required the corruption issues to have been elevated to the top of the priority list years ago when they were first reported, and v.14 not having been oversold. Yet even now in posts from both Nathan and Michele, corruption issues is not even stated to be top priority, rather syncing. And frankly, as valuable as some people think syncing is, I think we can all agree that stability is more important. The word "corruption" doesn't even occur in the announcement at all. So it leaves me wondering how seriously Accordance sees the corruption. Obviously they see it as below syncing, for reasons I don't quite understand.

 

[Sean Nelson]

3 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

A number of resources have been suggested over the last year or two, and reiterated as @Dr. Nathan Parker has tried to make an official record of them. However, as others have pointed out, few of these have actually been retained, whereas several others which I hadn't seen requested have been coming out steadily. I understand the need to balance out material that is helpful for the non-specialist with more in-depth academic works, and that the latter will always be financially less lucrative. But aside the two works on Hebrew mentioned by the management (paradoxically too specialized—and too expensive—for my uses), there's been little for those working in academic fields. For this reason, I've been ordering less over the last several months, not because of any lack of confidence in Accordance but, simply, because there are fewer resources I think I can find useful.

Some of the explanation for why you see titles other than the ones requested on the forums being released is that we are working our way through the files already provided for us by the various publishers with whom we have licensing contracts. When someone requests a new title, adding it to the development list requires us to get the files for the work from the publishers if we have an existing contract, or negotiate a new contract if its a new publisher. These things take time, as prices, royalties, etc. need to be negotiated with the publishers.

We are always working with publishers to get new titles, but in the meantime, we are also working to release the works that the publishers have already supplied us.

 

Edit: Obviously, we also have to consider factors like customer demand, profit potential, difficulty of development, etc. when prioritizing which titles to pursue/develop.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

1 hour ago, Kristin said:

And frankly, as valuable as some people think syncing is, I think we can all agree that stability is more important.

 

We see it as very important, and as I've stated previously (and hopefully this is the final time I'll have to say it), once we release syncing, we will be in a solid position to further determine the best technical path forward concerning this.