Athena13

Do you have a screengrab of the black/green? I'm only seeing a snippet showing the grey/red part of your comment. Were all the items above your highlighted list grey before you clicked on the red? Were the ones in that top list that did not turn red created at a different time than the highlighted and non-highlighted that did? Or is there anything else you can think of that is different between the two sets of changed/not changed items in the top list? Have you tried highlighting everything, clicking on a single color, and then highlighting and applying a new color to the highlights? I don't know how this page is programmed, but I've certainly had similar issues in other software that were resolved this way (sometimes color, sometimes other formatting; I'm thinking about the loss of "reveal codes" when WP got phased out of common use.) Also, is the line under "stocks" missing under the "st," or is that a glitch in the snip?

Clearly we Plus members are the red-headed stepchildren of the EN family....

Thanks!

Okay, now it's my turn to apologize for not considering my audience and differences in ways of hearing/approaching things. I apologize for that! I did not mean to single you out, or to imply that I wanted you to change anything you'd written to me 😳, but I do appreciate the time and effort you took to respond. (I'm the sort of person who does not necessarily speak in terms of action items, and who speaks in order to hash out an idea, not waiting to speak only when I've fully digested my thought and have something specific in mind to resolve it. I could bore you with MBTI (descriptive personality assessments) information about me and "types" that are more commonly drawn to technical fields, but I'm off-topic as it is.) In any case, thank you for the response and for giving consideration to my comments. 🙂

Thanks, Dave-in-Decatur. I agree with all you said (I say this, recognizing that I might have suggested that I take issue with the EN terminology or don't understand it, which is not my position at all) and appreciate your comment!

Thanks - I understand tags; I was just referring to the insistence on correcting noobs in a way that is dismissive and doesn't explain to them the differences (or similarities) to folders. Branding is great; consistent nomenclature is great; but to improve understanding (and thus adoption of the product), it might need to be spelled out without implying someone is an idiot for using more familiar terminology. And to be clear, I haven't personally experienced this and wouldn't be bothered if I had, but I've seen it over and over, and it's pretty off-putting and also often creates a communication barrier because expert users here respond as if someone has spoken in an alien tongue if they don't use the EN lexicon. ETA: "These are two fields in the metadata" is an excellent example of my other point: "two fields in the metadata" means something to you, but it means nothing to most casual users, and close-to-nothing (as in knowing what fields and metadata are, but not having the requisite knowledge or experience to know how that plays out in how the app behaves, or whatever other reason that is relevant information) to non-tech-pro-but-pretty-skilled-in-the-world-of-end-users people. And fwiw, as I've said, I'm not a tech person by trade. However, I have been the business owner of programs that undertook projects to identify, select, and design applications within certain platforms (full customization), and in that capacity and my capacity as a pretty hands-on project owner, I have been in the postition of being the only person (in both a Fortune 10 and a Fortune 100 company) who could translate (in both directions) between the developers/their PM and the stakeholders/business folks. Despite being a lawyer by training and history, I could reconcile a business person talking about what the end user is going to want to be able to do with the methods and technical limitations of the chosen platform. Because there was that translation, a lot of things that the developer team/PM said couldn't be done actually could, and would, and I know for certain the vendor themselves learned a few new ways to approach an issue and a few new capacities to market. We ended up having a better product and outcome that way for sure, because (my general point) coders and developers and folks immersed in that all day speak a different language to a lot of users.

Your last sentence, which I assume meant to be that users "who" are unable to work with this paradigm...? Assuming that is the case, this raises an issue or two that I see all over these boards, and, to some meaningful extent, in the EN helpbase: there seems to be a presumption of a level of technical competence that is wildly unrepresentative of even those interested in technical solutions to personal knowledge management, much less the average person out there looking for a good way to keep track of things. In the universe that is non-coders/non-developers, I am probably in the top couple of percent in tech comfort and competence. But so many of the workarounds described on this board, and running one's own scripts, etc., are simply not reasonable to expect of a broad base of users. And the assumption that it is, or should be, will necessarily alienate users and potential users. comfort with change and flexibility in terminology. Again, I'm pretty good with this, but the formal help from EN help resources, as well as the conversations here ("EN doesn't do "folders"; we use notebooks. Well, guess what? For the average end-user, they function in the same way. So it's pretty rude to be snide about it. And it would be to EN's advantage to have materials out there that explain how things that may appear identical aren't, and vice-versa. No reason to be afraid of diluting the nomenclature by describing its more familiar analog. Another example is the information available to a new user about how tabs function. Once I figured out a concept for them that worked for me (3-dimensional organization is how I view a system like this in which tags are at least as powerful (if not more) as more traditionally styled organizational methodologies. And YES, most people in the world are not so familiar with tags and good protocols for using them as the user base that haunts these discussion boards or that creates EN, it is clear. And even to me, seeing the apparently manual sorts and searches by users here that are clearly made outside the EN-offered UI is rather like receiving an answer written in the Cyrillic alphabet. This may not be the appropriate place to raise these points (interestingly, these Discussion Boards are not super-well organized). They are larger than specific functionality or user experiences, but they go a long way to making EN off-putting to many - more than you might think. A little less "this is for people like us" - filling out the help section, not being afraid to explain the unknown in relation or contrast to the known, and answering questions to people clearly new or not highly technical or willing or able to put in the hours and days and weeks to acquire a working familiarity with the non-basic fundamentals of how tech behaves, in plain English, not semi-jargon, would benefit both EN and its users/potential users.

I actually clicked on the offer to see what that would make the cost be (I couldn't recall off-hand), and I got a message that I was not eligible for the offer. I am currently a Plus member.

+1000 It is important to me that my documents across platforms and across applications have a consistent look and feel. I use Calibri everywhere - and somehow that seems also to have become a default on a broad scale for modern, streamlined but stylish documents, so it's not like I'm hoping for Papyrus or a rare custom design. It's probably a deal-breaker for me to lose the ability to retain the fonts all my existing documents have and all of the documents I generate on other services have. I do not understand why EN would want to take a step backward to the very basic and dated-looking fonts in that short list of 5 or 6.

Ugh, so you have to scroll to see a key identifier/how and where the note fits into my taxonomy. Having those at the top of the note make it easy to run your eyes over them in no time/at any time as a matter of course. Putting them at the bottom means a deliberate effort to scroll down to check that the tags I have are the ones I want. From a basic QA and user-friendly perspective, they should be at the top.

I realize this post and its replies are several months old, but I have some follow-up questions, if someone can help. 1. DTLow mentioned they were able, on a Mac, to put tags in hierarchies. Is that something possible only on a Mac, or is it an EN feature I should be able to find on Widnows app/website? I have not seen anythign on it and would like to do it. 2. I also saw that someone else talked just about applying multiple tags, which I can do, but I would like to get a visual of the hierarchy, so I can more easily ensure consistency of the hierarchy workaround and don't have to go through each note or each combination and manually check. Any perspective or direction is appreciated.