Mike P

I completely agree. LIke you I use a period or a space before the checkbox if I want a checkbox at the beginning of the line. I tend to use the square brackets hack .[] as I find that faster than opening the insert menu with my mouse

One character is quite sufficient EN have a clear distinction for their product with very different behaviours. Checklists are designed to be a list and behave like the other lists (numbered and bulleted). The main criticism that some people have is that when ticked it crosses through the text. Checkboxes are designed ot be much more flexible with the ability to put them anywhere - except the first character in a line. Most of the criticisms could be solved by making the strikeout optional and not converting checkboxes to checklists if you put one at the beginning of a line, There is no indication that EN are minded to do either of these things. While I agree that it could be confusing it is generally the lack of choice and options that people complain about in the new version.

I don't want to repeat myself but: Have you done this?

ctrl-Q is not a global shortcut. From the keyboard shortcut list (ctrl+/): I get the same behaviour as you as to where it works.

Checkboxes have not gone and in addition there are now checklists. The only problem is that unless you are careful EN will convert checkboxes to checklists. The check box is available from the blue + insert menu. However if you pit it at the beginning of a line EN will convert it to a checklist so you need to add another character first. I personally use the short cut <space><open square bracket><close square bracket> I personally like checklists for many things because I like the crossing out of text and the ease of dragging items around to reorder them.

Underneath the title that says "Search results" it says "Save search" Click that, give it a name and choose "Add this saved search to shortcuts" If you already have a saved search you can add it to shortcuts by running the search and then accessing the "edit saved search" from the three dots menu. That again gives you the option to save it as a shortcut.

I should also have mentioned that a search for a tag is also not limited to 128. tag:tag_name

I assume these are old notes. it does take some time for notes to be indexed - anywhere between fractions of a second to hours! I would check the notes are present on the web version and also check the search on the web version. That eliminates any issues with syncing etc.

ctrl - clicking an internal link will open it in a new window.

I raised this in another thread a few days ago and also raised a support ticket. Evernote, in their normal infuriating way, have closed the ticket with the final response being: A couple of things are worth noting: If you search first (e.g. search for all notes by simply adding a * in the search field) and then filter, the results are no longer lmited to 128. Unfortunately you have to add the filter using the filter menu not by clicking the tag in the sidebar. If you further refine the search so that there are less than 128 results EN effectively adds the second filter to all the results of the first filter not just the 128 it displays. I know this because I get notes returned which were not in the original 128.

If you want to exclude a whole notebook from a list you cannot do it using the filter menu. However you can do it using the search syntax: -notebook:"notebook name" The - at the beginning negates the search. You only need the quotation marks if there are spaces in your notebook name. Notebook names are not case sensitive. You can list multiple notebooks if you want. -notebook:notebook1 -notebook:notebook2 You can then filter. Personally I would set up the search as I want it and save then it as a shortcut. Then use the filter menu if that is what you are most comfortable with.

From memory if you cut and paste from the web into the legacy product that is exactly what it did. However the url became the note url so you could only do it once per note. Alternatively you can select the text and open the webclipper. Make sure "selection" is chosen and then hit save clip. The url will become the note url. Again this is OK provided you only want one chunk of text per note. Unfortunately if you merge the notes only one of the urls is retained. There are also external utilities (e.g. chrome plugins) that will copy text and the url to the clipboard. This sounds like a good option but I haven't tried any of them.

On windows the data base is here: "C:\Users\Mike\AppData\Roaming\Evernote\conduit-storage\https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com\UDB-UserXXXXX+RemoteGraph.sql" It contins a number of tables of which the relevant one is not surprisingly Nodes_Tag. This is where my SQL knowledge gives up but If I export that table as a csv I get the same number of lines as the number of tags reported when I create a log file. The tag names are embedded in a lot of gumph but are in the form ""label"":""tag name"" Unfortunately the lines are not all of the same structure/length so the tag names would need ot be extracted with some regex. I assume somebody with more SQL knowledge could do this directly.

If you have even a very basic knowledge of SQL it is possible to hack the local database in V10 to export a list of tags as a csv file. You will then need to do some fairly basic parsing to remove the tag names from all the other stuff. Obviously do not attempt to manipulate the data base directly but exporting a table as a csv file seems to work fine. Only do this if you are prepared to take the risk etc etc and it is probably better to work from a copy rather than the live data base.

I assume you already have the Evernote web clipper installed. If not, that is your first step. If you highlight the block of text and then hit the webclipper icon an additional option of "selection" appears. Click "save clip" and you are done.

Very strange but today it is not resetting the search. I will continue to monitor.

As I said, the note title appears for me in both the pdf and the html but I agree that they do not include the other meta data.

An alternative, which can be done entirely using the keyboard, which you may (or may not) prefer is: ctrl-K <tab> ctrl-V <enter> Or another alternative is to use the markup style formatting: [](ctrl-V)<enter> (You need both the square brackets and regular brackets)

alt+F2 (open tag filter) is a very easy and convenient way of opening the filter menu with the tags section already open. It works well if used from the notes view or a notebook view. However if you search first and then use alt+F2 it resets the view to the notes view. In contrast if you click on the filter icon and then open the tags filter from there, you can add tag filters to the existing search. I assume this is a bug as the general ethos seems to be "search then filter" and it seems illogical to reset the search by opening the filter menu.

Yes it hadn't escaped my notice that it was 2^7! The good news is that if you then apply another filter it seems to filter on all the results of the first filter not just on the 128 results displayed. If you get all notes by searching for * you can then filter and get all the expected results (ie over 128) which to my mind is illogical. I have a support ticket out on this but so far no meaningful response.

I would also like the option of changing the default setting. You don't say how you attach the pdfs to the notes. If you are using the drag and drop method there is a work around which may or may not be useful. Create a table and drag and drop the pdf into a cell in the table. EN is sensible enough to realise it can't get a preview into such a small space and therefore shows it as an attachment. I find this particularly useful if I have a lot of pdfs in one note as I can have a two column table with comments about each pdf in the second column.

I'm afraid moving large numbers of notes is still best achieved using the laegacy version. Even moving 50 notes will leave plenty of time for making a cup of coffee or three as it locks up your computer for several minutes.

That is true even when the export is html. However it is not visible - you have to open the html file in an editor and search for it. If @Evernote User 12345 wants to actually see that data in either an html or pdf file there is not currently a way without manually pasting the critical information into the body of the note. I don't understand the issue with note title. It appears for me in both the pdf or html.

I can repeat this behaviour. In my case any sort of filtering, unless I have searched first, maxes out at 128 results. So clicking on a tag in the sidebar which is attached to 615 notes gives me 128 hits. If I apply the notebook filter from the search bar I get the correct result: If I use the notebook filter in the filter I get only 128 results I hope this is a bug and not EN trying to be clever about which notes it returns!

Create a new note and set up each of the styles (normal text, small header etc) as you want them. Remember to save them. You can then delete all the text if you want to and then save the note as a template. Whenever you create a new note open the template gallery and click on your template. Two extra clicks so by V10 standards quite a quick work around!