(Archived) searching on 3 devices ends up with 3 different results

[evermullah 8]

hi,

i have saved a simple search: FileName:evermullah*

now, when i use that saved search on different clients (latest stable versions), i get different results.

MAC: 8 notes

PC: 6 notes

iPhone: 5 notes

Web: i'm missing the feature to use a saved search here. am i blind or is this not implemented yet?

what could be the reason for this? (in all clients, the hits only covered synced notebooks.)

[Metrodon 2,188]

You should open a support case.

[jbenson2 2,149]

If you submit a support request, I hope the answer is not the generic uninstall and reinstall.

There has been a lot of discussion on the differences in the OCR results, but I did not realize the problem included standard searches.

Last month, Evernote staff member Peter posted this cryptic response to another post about the use of FileName.

I've read it a few times and still do not understand what he means.

http://forum.evernote.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=28693&p=123072&hilit=filename#p123072

His final comment makes it look like Evernote knows there is a problem and it will eventually be solved.

"All clients will eventually fully conform to the specification."

[evermullah 8]

Last month, Evernote staff member Peter posted this cryptic response to another post about the use of FileName.

I've read it a few times and still do not understand what he means.

"filename:" search keyword is part of the Evernote Search Syntax specification published here: http://www.evernote.com/about/developer ... te-api.htm, so it should not go away. All clients will eventually fully conform to the specification.

/Peter

as far as i understand his last sentence, EN-clients will never conform to the EN specifications. :->

glad they have a specification! thats the first step. the second step is to reject and start from scratch, hehe

[jefito 5,598]

It's not all that cryptic: what it means is that they have a specification (see the link), that the "filename" search operator will not go away (because it's part fo the spec), that all clients do not at this time meet the spec, but that they will eventually.

[jbenson2 2,149]

It's not all that cryptic

It certainly looks cryptic to me, especially when his answer references terms such as greedy recursive-descent parsing.

Filename instructions from the link:

• "The following grammar is expressed using EBNF notation (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_B ... 3Naur_form). This grammar assumes that recursive-descent parsing will be "greedy" to handle any ambiguity. The output of parsing this grammar is a set of terms and operators; separators are ignored. The parsing results of search expressions which do not match this grammar are undefined.

* or a ResourceAttribute field (e.g. "fileName")"

Thanks for your explanation.

[jefito 5,598]

Yeah, I can see how the techie-geek-talk bit could be described as "cryptic" *g* It's probably not something that most users need to worry about. The takeaway, though, is what Peter said, which is what I was referring to as non-cryptic.