Brother Tobias

13 hours ago, PinkElephant said:

I import emails frequently, but I don't see anything like this.

If this happens with emails, the most likely explanation is that this are HTML mails (holding hidden formatting). HTML is not completely standardized. It can be that embedded formatting commands are interpreted differently by different programs.

You can try to view the email in it's HTML version to see if there are really spaces, or if there are HTML formatting elements where the spaces appear.

It appears the HTML formatting may be the problem. My issue is that it wasn't a problem before version 10. I don't know what changed in Evernote to no longer be able to parse HTML properly, but that appears to be the source of the change. I've logged a feedback issue.

On 10/7/2022 at 12:25 PM, Brother Tobias said:

Thanks. I'm aware there are workarounds such as using search and replace to remove the added padding. But as I say, with thousands of notes going back to (IIRC) version 4 of Evernote, it is too much to have to run search and replace on all of them. Especially when many of them are emails imported effortlessly using the direct evernote account email address. It makes the feature far less useful by adding additional steps, to say nothing of my already large archive of email in evernote. After all, the point of computers is that they should do work for one, not create more work for one to do. It's too bad that in version 10 the designers didn't stick closer to the formatting system of the older version.

I'm back now over a year later and this problem still has not been addressed. Email import used to work fine in the legacy version, but version 10+ continues to insert blocks of spaces. The lack of global search and replace over multiple documents makes for no easy post import solution. I would dearly love to see this issue addressed with the seriousness it deserves.

I found that the built in hotkey for this function is not working. I changed it to shft-alt-ctrl-L and that works.

Windows 11
10.71.2

Is there a way to search and replace things like hard returns, or other such format elements, in Evernote 10 (Win)? I am used to doing this in several Word Processors (for example, finding double paragraph breaks and replacing with single: ^p^p → ^p.

Thanks. 

Thanks. I'm aware there are workarounds such as using search and replace to remove the added padding. But as I say, with thousands of notes going back to (IIRC) version 4 of Evernote, it is too much to have to run search and replace on all of them. Especially when many of them are emails imported effortlessly using the direct evernote account email address. It makes the feature far less useful by adding additional steps, to say nothing of my already large archive of email in evernote. After all, the point of computers is that they should do work for one, not create more work for one to do. It's too bad that in version 10 the designers didn't stick closer to the formatting system of the older version.

Almost every note I open in v10 (October 2022) has reformatted the text in this way, with blocks of six spaces added in every line. I have thousands of notes, and doing a search and replace on each one of them is out of the question. 

I keep trying to like v 10 over Legacy, but every time I start if I run into this nonsense of the tray icon wanting to create a new note. What I want to do is access my notes, not create a new one. The primary purpose of Evernote used to be just that. It's easy enough to create a new note if I want one, once I'm in the main program. But now it's two clicks to get there just to open it.

IIRC the old Evernote had a global hotkey for creating a new note.

Thanks, Allen. I use it successfully on the Onyx Boox Note 2. As far as screen refresh, I can't speak to the Mars but the Onyx Boox Note has had a high-speed low-fidelity mode that even works for mono video. I wouldn't watch much video that way, but it does save packing an extra tablet. The ability to have multiple programs running makes it easy to cut and paste between an e-book volume and Evernote (or Google Docs).

Rec'd notification the topic went live again after a rest. 🙂 I am having no trouble using Evernote on the Onyx Boox, but I'm still using version 8.3x. I'm reluctant to "upgrade" to version 10 because of my bad experience of the "new" Evernote on Win10… I'm still using the Legacy Version on Windows due to loss of features in the newer version. 

The fact that this is a standard feature of html going way back (not sure how far, but I know I used it years ago!) indicates this is a question of priority rather than possibility. 

Thanks. I'm still working with Evernote tech trying other things; this may be my fall back if they can't figure out what's going on.

Hmmm. I've never signed up for Beta as far as I know. I see where Google Play offers an option to be a beta tester, but I've never done that for Evernote. I suppose this could be a regional thing. I just looked again and my Play Store is showing 8.2 with no mention of a beta, other than the option at the end of the screen to sign up for it. WHich I haven't done.... If I could gind 8.1 I'd install it, as that was the last working version.

8.2 is the version at the Play Store as of this morning. I installed it this past Tuesday.

I was using Evernote on the Boox Note 10.3 until the app update to 8.2, with which it has stopped working. I have a ticket in to the tech support at Evernote. I was finding it worked well in version 8.1, though.

23 minutes ago, DTLow said:

You could post a feature request in the forum at https://discussion.evernote.com/forum/304-general-feature-requests/

This topic is a scanner settings issue from a user.

Yes; I believe a feature request has been posted regarding this with the topic "unmerge." 

The op is about scanners, but the question is about splitting notes. That's why I commented.

I use Evernote on Win 10 and Android.

13 hours ago, gazumped said:

Hi.  That's totally outside the scope of a general-purpose notation app like Evernote.  You would be able to do (most of) that with a script or an external application,  but not Evernote.

I've archived a lot of data into Evernote,  and some I've saved into separate notes where it was convenient to do so.  Some items I've left for more "agile" curation - they're saved as one (very long) note,  which I normally hate - but I know I'll find the content within that note if I ever need it again;  and when/ if I do,  I'll probably copy it from there into its own note. 

That will be a highlight / cut / paste into a new note job.  It's not worthwhile to spend the time now getting all those notes into some sort of neat and tidy order - there's too much to handle in any reasonable time frame.  So I'll process it over maybe 2-3 years if and when I need it.  If I don't need it within that time,  it's probably no longer relevant anyway!

Yes, I realize Evernote can't do it. That's why this is a feature request. It seems obvious to me that if you have a feature that merges notes, it would be useful to have a feature to split them.

I have been using external scripting for this; but it is less than convenient. I have multi megabits of data that I would like to convert to Evernote.

I still see it as an important feature request: the ability to divide a large (text) note into several smaller notes. I have several archives of material I would love to be able to divide in a computer assisted way, rather than manually (using the block, ctrl-c, ctrl-altv provided above). Ideally this would involve being able to tell Evernote to

1. Seek a string assigned as a break point

2. Select all text up to the next instance of the break point string.

3. Create a new note with the first line after the first break point as its title.

4. Repeat until complete.

This would be a great feature for transferring material from my old askSam files!

For a reference tool not to be able to cross-reference is a serious weakness. When I take notes that refer to protions of other notes, I want to be able to link to the cited portion, not just the whole note. Being able to embed an anchor (similar to the html # format) would be direct and familiar.

Thanks. (I've voted at the feature request ...)