lhb

I'm alarmed by this: One of the attractions of Evernote is that your note has persistence independent from changes to a site from which you clipped content, you can access your note offline. Even with classic Evernote I had cases where images inexplicably were referenced instead of inserted. While I never could quite reproduce that problem (I was assured that that was not the standard/expected behavior), I'm worried that this could become the new normal.

Thanks a lot. I was wondering, and this may indeed be an explanation I never thought of or saw mentioned. I have fiber connection so I would not be so much worried, but I guess the limitation could be the data on the Evernote side. Sadly, v5.33 has bugs, such as sometimes changing my created date, which I have then to reset in another version. I do enjoy the new editor (beta in v5.33), which has a lot fewer problems and limitations. I's a bit of a challenge keeping up a reasonable workflow between all the versions with their limitations, features, bugs, and performance challenges. I was hoping that a web version with faster deployment of fixes would allow me to bridge the time until the dust around Evernote 10 has settled.

I'm still stuck on v5.33.0 on Edge

I still have the problem. For whatever reason, my web client with editor beta is still on v5.33.0. It's happening "I-don't-know-when" for some notes. It's annoying, as I rely on the web editor for some things while waiting for the dust to settle before migrating to Windows 10.x 😱

I had this happen in the past as well, so this is not new behavior. See also this thread: Missing image in note - General Technical Issues - Evernote User Forum. It was suggested I report it as a bug, which I did. but it seems I did not accomplish to convey the problem, and all I got were some well-meant suggestions on how to create, edit or fix a note. My problem, however, is that I don't know which notes are affected in the first place. In the editor you never know until you are offline. Most of the affected or edited notes are old (you'll notice when the original source moved, but then it's late). Correspondingly, providing the activity log does not help. I never managed to find out under what conditions images are saved as link (referenced) or as a local resource (included). It seemed to depend on the web site clips were taken from. However it also seemed that the behavior on one web site was not consistent, in the sense that some were included, others referenced. It would be useful to have some script to scan notes for images that are not included as resources and flag them, maybe through a tag, so one could examine them. Again, in the Evernote editor I cannot see whether images are included or referenced. And I really don't want to get into personally editing ENEX files. Furthermore the export/import probably (?) destroys the note history, so I am losing something else.

Just here, the way it looks. While the history is correct, the "created date" is updated without reason; I was just happily editing away the text in the web interface with the beta editor when, at some point in the process, the "created date" must have been updated. But it's not always updated; later edit did not have an effect. Here the screenshots: From the note history ... .... and from the note Info:

I have the same problem. I am not referring to the sorting. I am referring to the fact that the web client beta, and for what I know, also the Windows Beta, sometimes change the create date to the update date for unknown reasons. I cannot reproduce it. But it happens, and I know because I always sort by create date. So suddenly, an old note I touched/edited turns up on top. I think I reported it as beta feedback for Windows Beta 6.14. It happened to me with the web editor beta again today.

Still the same in v5.33.

Sme problem here. Note shown, sometimes a progress bar appears for a bit, nothing ever happens. Windows 6.24.2.8919 (308919) Public (CE Build ce-62.6.10954)

An ancient problem I have the same problem, and it is ancient. It seems to me that some of the "formatting" of "simplified articles" was hardcoded into the client rather than into the note itself, which made further simplification (applying "simplify formatting" on a "simplified article") at one point in the past completely impossible and stopped me from using it. Nowadays it leaves (I'm using the Windows client) this spurious line. This is more usable, but still annoying. But the mileage on "simplify formatting" in various clients seems to vary, also depending on releases. Sometimes "simplify" does leave a weird mess. And for instance in the Windows client it still leaves section titles that are obviously formatted with some "heading" formatting setting not accessible in the Windows client. Workaround: Use the web beta editor As a workaround, I started resorting to the Web Editor Beta, allegedly a beta of the codebase for all further clients. It is in my experience much more robust both for editing and simplification. It also does not show the spurious line for simplified articles to start with. It also shows simplified articles at the width selected in the client, rather than a "hardcoded" width. So I think the problems will be going away in the medium to longer term, which is good. (I'm using Windows public release and Web Beta Editor (~5.31) updated, and am not in the beta program.)

I'm puzzled and would love to get a clarification or some insight. I'm used to "webp" images not being shown in the (standard) Windows client. It's kind of a drag, since many web pages and corresponding clippings or copies may contain them. I did create a note in the Windows client (6.24.2.8919 (308919) Public (CE Build ce-62.6.10954)), into which I clipped some images from a web browser, and of course they showed up as a "webp" inline "attachment" rather than an inline picture. OK, the Windows client never had web support, so I'm not surprised. However, I was surprised not to see as inline pictures in the web beta version (v5.30 or so, using it on Microsoft Edge, Chromium. I am using the beta editor --- which I love ---- but was still not included into the complete web beta although signing up about a month ago). Web browsers should have "webp" support included. Or should they not? Is this a limitation of the beta editor? I'm curious. Any insights from the discussion forum? Here's how it looks in the Windows client and here how it looks in the Web client.

In addition, what _IS_ beta. I am currently using the web editor beta, but get ~ version 5.30, so I'm not using the same beta, which may make any supposed beta feedback irrelevant or confusing. On a related note: The Windows client has a beta option which I enabled. But that seems not to work anymore. Realizing that, I signed up to the official "beta program" , was accepted into the program and am waiting for new versions.

Thank you for your fast reply. OK, will do. Although it's a beta, so I was not sure if they're expecting that.

I'm using the web client more and more and am very happy with it (v5.29.0). There seems to be a much newer version out, but I would not know how to get it. Who knows, my comment may already have been addressed and not only therefore been superfluous. I find the formatting of note titles confusing. As far as I remember, the title has always been quarantined above the notebook/tags/editing bar. But since there is an extraordinary, unexplainable amount of space between the functional bar and the note title, it now seems to be part of the note body. But remember: it's a different field of the note. I don't mind layout changes, but this leads to other problems: There is also no division to separate it from the note. For the functional notebook/tags/editing bar, there is a thin line separating it from the rest. For the title, there is nothing. It may be useful to at least give it a slightly different background shade, or maybe another thin line. The note title and the article title that may be coming from the clipper, have identical font and background. This is not only confusing and ugly; it looks like a dispensable repetition demanding to be eliminated. I have a lot of clipped notes, and giving in to these demands would create a lot of unnecessary work. You see what I mean in the attached picture. This is a minor temporary annoyance without any impact on functionality. I'm having faith that the trend-pendulum has reached its extreme on the white-out side. Therefore I hurry to bring my comment in and hatch down before the pendulum swings back to the other side, possibly delighting us with photorealistic skeuomorphism featuring an organic reclaimed-wood/cyberpunk finish.

One little addition: Usually this is only a display issue in the web client; it remains looking OK in the desktop client. However, once I edit in the web client, the boxes do become as they look in the web client; ie, the span and background color will be gone.

Since this is just a beta (I'm running what seems to be v5.29.0 on Edge(Chromium) I'm going to report it here. A minor issue, since I have almost moved to the Web Client for editing purposes. I see a difference in display of the header boxes Evernote generates during merging. I created two notes in the Windows client and merged them. Looks OK on Windows, but the generated header boxes look really different on the Web. Evernote often did some "special" processing of some "Evernote-internally-generated/used" items, so this may be the reason. This is what it looks like on in the Windows Desktop client (up to date for the day, and it always looked like this; it's not a Windows issue) And this is today's Web client v5.29.0. I introduced the note title, which may be confusing. (That's actually another small issue with the web client, that the title practically looks like the text itself. On Windows, the title is well separated, not in the web client.)

Thanks both of you, and I agree. But just to remain on track: My primary question was better protection in "conduit" against editing a locally corrupted note and submitting the result, something which has happened for me in the specific case of mismatched header and body.

Will the redesigned conduit include some data-health/consistency/sanity/anti-corruption/checksum check? At some time I had problems with notes on iOS, in that there were titles and content mixed up. Editing such a note would then of course "cement" such local problems into the database. It was unnerving to see new notes with mixed up titles and content. That kept me off using iOS all together, since I could not trust the data that was copied to the device. One could argue that one could always go back with note history, but for that one has to first see that there was a problem in the first place. In some notes this may be obvious, in others not. (I reported this issue and tried to work with support on finding the problem, but the issue was closed without getting to the bottom of it; much later I read in some release notes that such an issue was fixed.) (There are also rumors of such problems occurring on other platforms, as well rumors of lost resources and the like. I suspected I had some lost resources sometimes, but it seems that this was a case of a resource being integrated into the note through a hyperlink rather than through embedding the resource into the note, so one could blame the particular clipping/copy/paste method (when copying from web sites) rather than a database problem; still, the issue is annoying when one goes offline with a computer for an extended time and finds that notes intended to be complete are not. But redesigning Conduit may not help there.) Somebody is now going to suggest me to make backups and rely on note history, but the reason for using Evernote is so I don't have to rely on my own set-up, records, and fuzzy memory. Anyway, it would be interesting to see whether note-health is now checked before viewing or any edit starts.

Ah, agree. I was merely commenting on my status for those who were pondering which browsers might work. And the _web_ beta might be different from the _editor_ beta, the latter of which I'm happy to use.

Running MS Edge (Chromium) Version 81.0.416.6 (Official build) dev (64-bit) and getting Evernote Web v5.28.0, with the beta editor but no nested tags.

Second that. The new web editor beta (hopefully to arrive on other platforms) is great. "Simplifying" web clips on my Windows Desktop version often leads to problems with images and the like; I started resorting to the Web Editor Beta for most of that work. The clear indication of what is HTML content, and much better results in converting that to editable (simplified) content are far superior. Also, the editor allows for some features like multiple highlight colors (although the yellow for whatever reason is not the yellow of the desktop, but an uglier variant --- at least in my view), better formatting (headers, and correct representation of those, as opposed to the broken spacing on the desktop editor), etc. Bit shout-out to the creators of this web editor. After many years as premium user and on the verge of jumping ship, I've become more enthusiastic about the recent improvements and the roadmap.

I've got the same problem in the Microsoft Edge Developer Build (which is now based on Chromium) that was released this week. The same issue, it used to work, now it doesn't, and gives the same unwarranted message regarding 3rd party cookies. Here the version information: Version 81.0.396.0 (Official build) dev (64-bit)

I have similar problems. I was offline for an extended period and was using old notes for reference; I guess that's partially the purpose of Evernote: A database where you have all your web clips, notes etc. When exporting the note as ENEX, , I see that in many, if not most cases pictures are "integrated" into the note as <en-media hash="a0326cc8186ec1a28773e5bf95e88e57" type="image/jpeg"/> but in other cases they are just referenced as in (### is part of a web address) <img src="https://images.#####.com/####> which of course does not work when offline. Also, if the web site referenced should change or disappear, it will be definitely too late to fix it. How do these references arise? What forms clipping. Is it from copy/paste? Copy/pasting such images seems not to help, as only thel link seems to be copy/pasted. What is the criterion. I cannot recognize a clear strategy. I see them when I'm offline. How can I see what images are not "integrated into the note" when I'm online. Is there a script to find the notes with those occurrences? I have thousands of notes, so anything manual involving checking individual notes is not realistic. Similarly, exporting notes in ENEX and checking whether some images may be included or not is not a realistic way. Is there a way to fix them, other than manually? Are there other resources that are typically lost when taking/clipping a note, and related problems? Btw, I also have sometimes corrupted images, Windows, copy/paste. The picture shows up OK on top, but at some point starts becoming noisy, offset, discolored or is just disappearing. It may be that only JPG pictures are affected; I did not investigate that. Does Evernote have any form of check or warning for notes that are getting corrupted. I'm highly interested in Evernote being the "elephant memory" that the Evernote philosophy suggests.

Just completed it as well. Congratulations to the Evernote team. For the first time in decades I have actually been asked about something, and I can see progress. It's great. The new web client (beta) is really really good; I switched directly from the original web client and am quite happy that. From the very little use I gave it (still mainly using the native clients on Windows and Android) it looks very well designed. Formatting is more powerful now, and the editor seems to have a better feel than the Windows client.

Premium user since like forever. Too many legacy notes to make a switch worthwhile at this point. Support experience: Being made to jump through some hoops, then getting a message that the ticket was like being taken over by development and therefore closed. Never heard of it again. That includes data corruption (a big nono, note that there is no note integrity check) problems on iOS which I reported repeatedly. Saw then once, much later, the problem being addressed in a release note for iOS. Had really stopped using it by then actively on iOS, due the corruption problems and UI changes that made functionality worse. In 10+ years practically no progress on the apps, apart from misguided attempts to follow Apples latest misguided iOS design trends (remember Scott Forestall or so, I stopped use after whiteout, low contrast, minimal information density). Web interface still not fully functional (the old one is still the best)... Do we have highlights in the new one now?... I'm tired of checking. Windows : torn between using antique and beta versions, and between a little bit of useful functionality versus new, often old bugs. Long periods of "spinning beach all" or whatever the Windows equivalent is, making use a chore rather than a pleasure. The editor had some improvements, but still sucks. Don't know why some people classify it as a note taking application. Using it only for web clips and looking up legacy notes these days. The only product I'm using where I check a user forum, in hope of good news... Still waiting. Doing productive work elsewhere...