(Archived) HOWTO [Chrome]: Revert to older clipper [NOT POSSIBLE]

[grotesque 7]

the newer is sloooow.

It does not have "substring tag search"...earlier 1 did. And it did it quickly.

This was a very bad decision from the PMs IMHO

tagging is always easier from client at the end of day/session.

How to revert back to older ?

[karenjs 37]

I don't know how to revert, but you can disable "smart filing" on the current clipper, which seems to be the feature that's slowing you down & that you don't want. (I have also turned it off, and feel the same about tagging/organizing in batches after the clips have hit my Inbound notebook).

Right click on the green elephant and select Options, and uncheck the box. (Or do Window -> Extensions -> Options for EN, to reach the same screen.) Hope this was what you were looking for.

[grotesque 7]

I have already disabled the feature, still dont find it comfortable.

I mean, super fast web clipping to read later is basic decisive selling point of evernote.

And iff I want to tag while clipping I find it irritating that the new extension will not match substrings.

Doesn't evernote have an archive of old extension somewhere ?

[Owyn 457]

Chrome, unlike Firefox, does not provide access to prior versions of extensions.

Evernote does not, AFAIK, provide an independent archive of prior releases.

[JMichaelTX 4,120]

I am *so glad* that I have picked FF as my main browser and clipper.

I rely heavily on web clipping, and all these Chrome problems, without any revert, would drive me crazy.

So until Evernote finally gets the Chrome clipper fixed, you might want to give FF a try.

[peterfmartin 221]

Yeah, I've also found the Chrome clipper to be excruciatingly slow recently. Unfortunately, Chrome is overall still a better browser for me than Firefox for a number of reasons. But I've taken to clipping immediately (before anything loads) so clips go into my default notebook without tags. I then tag later. This is faster than waiting for the clipper (to even load a notebook) every time, but slower than applying tags in the clipper if it weren't so slow.

[jbignert 473]

Thanks for the feedback. We'll improve tagging speed.

[nopivnick 3]

This was a very bad decision from the PMs IMHO

agreed.

[nopivnick 3]

We'll improve tagging speed.

all things being equal, better would be to reinstate search-for-tag-by-substring before optimizing 'smart tag' speed.

assuming 'augmented memory/information retrieval' is still one of Evernote's principle value propositions, and assuming 'tags' are a core feature of that value proposition, it seems contradictory that users should now be required to recall tags *verbatim*.

[jefito 5,598]

Actually, I love this feature. It's a little slower than I might want sometimes, but adding the tags myself would often take longer, and it seems to do a good job tagging the sorts of things that I tend to clip, I don't mid tagging at the end of the day, but it's nice to get it right, up front, too.

[Owyn 457]

Actually, I love this feature. It's a little slower than I might want sometimes, but adding the tags myself would often take longer, and it seems to do a good job tagging the sorts of things that I tend to clip, I don't mid tagging at the end of the day, but it's nice to get it right, up front, too.

Ditto.

I usually edit the the note title before saving the clip. In most cases the tags have been assigned by the time I finish the edit.

[grotesque 7]

We'll improve tagging speed.

all things being equal, better would be to reinstate search-for-tag-by-substring before optimizing 'smart tag' speed.

assuming 'augmented memory/information retrieval' is still one of Evernote's principle value propositions, and assuming 'tags' are a core feature of that value proposition, it seems contradictory that users should now be required to recall tags *verbatim*.

its really irritating that the old clipper used to match "important searches" tag when I typed "search" while tagging ,and the newer does not.

I dont use automatic tag. For me this update resulted in a loss of functionality.

There should be some way to revert back.