Evernote Chrome Webclipper inserts pictures when clipping bookmarks only

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

Hi there,

I've tested Joplin and its webclipper, the good thing about is that if offers the option of clipping URLs without saving the pictures included within each link.

Now as I've noticed the last month has been particularly "laborious" for my Evernote's account, because I've reached nearly 70% of my monthly 60Mb limit.  I have never been so close to my limit before in a nearly decade of using Evernote. I would normally utilize only a few Mbs of my space every month. No wonder Evernote has chosen my account for their aggressive marketing campaign. So I have asked myself, what did I do different last month in terms of clipping (most routine operation for which I utilize my Evernote)? And then I've realized that I've started clipping some Libgen ebooks from my RSS stream. So I've checked the bookmarks and, sh*t, I found that nearly every bookmark that I clipped from my Chrome also had the picture of the book cover (see below attached screenshot from my Evernote and also below Libgen's example link):

https://libgen.st/book/index.php?md5=149E096A1DC7D928E76B7B5ED824812F

While every picture would normally weigh up to 500Kb. In fact, I don't need those pictures at all, all I needed was the link and the book title along with its author. 

So why would Evernote clipper do any extra work by attaching the pics I dont even need? Is there any way this could be done by the same way as Joplin does?

In fact, I would prefer that Evernote redo all saved bookmarks to remove all attached pics completely by leaving only URLs with titles, if I may ask that...

 

 

[gazumped 11,693]

Depends how you're clipping I guess.  There are options that ignore the image...

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

2 minutes ago, gazumped said:

Depends how you're clipping I guess.  There are options that ignore the image...

 

Well, thanks for raising that. In the dialogue window that you've attached I would normally go for "Bookmark" option. Should I do it different then?

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

Joplin does it differently though.. see attached

 

[Jon/t 1,309]

Evernote does bookmark clipping differently to Joplin and sends a thumbnail over with the bookmark.

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

6 minutes ago, Jon/t said:

Evernote does bookmark clipping differently to Joplin and sends a thumbnail over with the bookmark.

Well, thanks for telling me what I already know 😄 All I meant to say is that Evernote can spare some cloud space by offering a different options set 

[gazumped 11,693]

After a whole 10 seconds experimentation I can offer:  an Evernote bookmark takes up 33K.  Dragging & dropping the URL from my browser to the desktop takes up 95 bytes.  D&D from desktop to note bulks that up to 281 bytes.  So maybe D&D to desktop (or import folder) and then (if necessary) D&D one or more shortcuts to a note?

EDIT: the import folder has the edge,  because that then auto-names your note with the book title...

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

30 minutes ago, gazumped said:

After a whole 10 seconds experimentation I can offer:  an Evernote bookmark takes up 33K.  Dragging & dropping the URL from my browser to the desktop takes up 95 bytes.  D&D from desktop to note bulks that up to 281 bytes.  So maybe D&D to desktop (or import folder) and then (if necessary) D&D one or more shortcuts to a note?

EDIT: the import folder has the edge,  because that then auto-names your note with the book title...

Well, this is what I do when I wanna bookmark. lets say, a Chrome extension to watch it. Because by some reason Evernote refuses to bookmark anything from Chrome webstore. So I have to do it manually by literally copying-pasting the URL. Though, frankly speaking, that seems a bit stupid. Automation is all about making things easier for people, not about encouraging them to engage in manual copying 😆

in fact, since all of us here seem to be somewhat advanced in terms of IT knowledge and coding, you would probably agree that my request implies only minor code changes. Because it's not about writing code up, it's rather about removing some lines from existing code and putting some checks to ensure that no extra data will be loaded 🤣 Otherwise, we wouldn't want to disturb you from your lazy idleness. But your aggressive marketing campaign launched lately makes us believe you are losing the ground....

[gazumped 11,693]

19 minutes ago, Jimmy Bionic said:

you would probably agree that my request implies only minor code changes.

Hmmn.  Evernote (who I am not,  by the way;  just another user here...) runs to 160KB of compiled code servicing millions of users 24/7.  It's a brave coder who dips in there and tweaks a bit of code to save the relatively few people who want URLs only in their clips - and hasn't already got their hands full dealing with across the board speed and reliability improvements / planned maintenance / and the R&D for whatever new tweaks seem most likely to earn some real income...

Feed it back to the company by all means,  but I don't think we'll see any changes before late next year,  if ever.

[Jimmy Bionic 15]

10 minutes ago, gazumped said:

runs to 160KB of compiled code servicing millions

Well, Webclipper extension seems a bit thicker than that, but anyway thanks for letting us know that IT support never attends the forum to read about users concerns  😄

sorry for being here an assh*le lately, just couldn't resist the temptation, given the backstory