jefito

Was wondering whether that was coming or not, since I knew you had the ability under the hood, for Hello and Food.

As jbenson wrote, you can Ctrl_click on tags to add them to your search (or remove them, too). Not so far as I know.

What do you mean? I use ifttt, and it adds tags automatically, which is how I organize my different feeds. You're right -- I guess what I wrote was a little misleading; since I read articles in Google Reader that I would wish to tag differently, based on content, I don't add any tags at all, I just send them to my Inbox notebook, for later winnowing. So yeah, you can add tags; I just don't find it very useful for my purposes.

They're still weak with respect to searching: you can only use a single Notebook, a single Stack, or All Notebooks as your search scope. A stack lets you get multiple notebooks into a search, but it's not particularly flexible, but not bad if you don't have a lot of notebooks and you don't really care all that much about how they're structured -- just make an ad hoc stack and search away (but you can't really then persist that search, since it's ad hoc).

That being said, notebooks are still the smallest granularity for offline notes (sets of notes that stay always resident on a mobile device, e.g. Android) and for local notes (sets of notes that reside only one a local machine, and not synced to the Evernote cloud), and are also the containers used for sharing sets of notes all at once. They're also useful as the targets of import operations or other external source that add untagged items to Evernote, like Google Reader via IFTTT or auto-forwarded emails, giving you an Inbox of sorts that you can paw through and categorize at your leisure. Those may be considerations for how you structure your Evernote note database.

No, I think that that's just a note link. A Saved Search is exactly what it says it is: if you define a search in the Search area ( a search for text, or a tag, for example), then you can save it as a Saved Search (File / New Saved Search...) -- you just need to supply a name for it. It will appear (in Windows) in your Saved Searches panel, at the left side of Evernote's window, and if you click on it, the search will be performed again.

First: if by saying "I'm sorry", however you're apologizing for your part in that misunderstanding, then I sincerely return the apology, for my part in it. That said, math was one of my majors as well. I am certainly not ignorant on that score. It's been 30+ years since graduation, but my in my field -- computer software -- I still use math a pretty fair amount (that would be an understatement). Curiously, as it happens, I also took a college math course and a computer programming course at the age of 15, but that was just a one-off thing; I'm not trying to start a "who's got the biggest, um, brain" contest here. But are you really, really saying that there can be no smallest element of a set containing two objects? If so, you are sadly mistaken. The term "smaller", in math and in general speech, mind, is a specialization of the more general concept of "smallest", but which is only used to apply to sets of two things. That doesn't malke "smallest" stop working on sets containing two (or even one) objects; it's just a convention that we have that we use "smaller" to apply to sets containing two objects. For sets with cardinality equal to 2, "smaller" is equivalent to "smallest". For sets of other cardinality, "smaller" doesn't apply. Mathematically we might say something like: smallest is a function mapping a set of numbers A to the number x in A, such that for all members y of A, x <= y. This works for all sets of any cardinality, except of course, the empty set, which has no members. There's nothing wrong with calling out smaller as a specialization of smallest; mathematicians apply special names to common or useful subsets all the time, but that's all it is: a specialization of a more general rule. The smallest function doesn't magically stop working when it encounters a set of two elements, it just returns the smaller of the two. [by the way: your professor's saying ("the language of mathematics is exact, concise, and precise") is cute, but not exactly mathematical by his own definition, as "precise" and "exact" are synonyms, and so therefore not "concise". Maybe it was just wishful thinking?] And the linguistic rule whereby we apply to "smaller" to pairs of items, and "smallest" to sets of items with 3 or more members and sets with indeterminate size, that's just a convention, just like the rule whereby we ought not seek to blithely split infinitives, or start a sentence with "and", or the kazillion other conventions that operate in some realms of the English language (but certainly not all of them). You might prefer to call these conventions "facts", but they're not exactly enduring ones. So long as meaning is conveyed without confusion, and I'm pretty certain that you are not confused by the use of "smallest" when applied to two dimensions. Miffed, piqued, or annoyed, perhaps, but that's just a matter probably best kept between you and your favorite grammar book.

You may be on somewhat better ground grammatically speaking, but with "all due respect", you have no idea what you are talking about, mathematically speaking. Maybe you should "put your best foot forward" and try to learn something. You do have more than two feet, do you not? Because despite what you claim, it is mathematically correct: "smallest" refers to the smallest member of a set, regardless of how many elements are in the set (even if there's only one). When we apply the function "smallest" to a set, it doesn't return failure if the set has at least one element, it just returns the smallest element. In computer programming, I don't need to write a special function that operates only on sets of two items, I write one function that works for all. Except for the exception when the number is indeterminate from context. *cough, cough* So maybe yes, you are technically correct with respect to grammar, but language is used for communication, and if someone understands what I say, then language's work is accomplished. So feel free to pick your prescriptive nits if that's how you want to spend your time here but everyone here (including you) understands the phrase "smallest dimension", even when it's applied to a two dimensional object. Language and the human mind are both flexible enough to manage. By the way, I've noticed a lot of misspellings and misplaced commas elsewhere in the forums, and I think there's a run on split infinitives going on in the Android forum; are you up for it? p.s., following an insult with a smiley doesn't make it less insulting, it makes it passive aggressive. You might want to watch that.

The fact that something is the smaller of two items doesn't make it any less the smallest.

If you are using the Windows client, you could export them both to Evernote format, and compare them with a text file comparison program (we use Beyond Compare at work for source code).

Salient quotes are: I didn't say that either was better, but I do I think it highly unlikely that I would use this, which was why my vote was 0. I use tags to group related notes together, and it's dead easy in the Windows client to search for notes with the same tag from any one note that has the tag (Shift+Click on the relevant tags in the note info panel). I only maintain about 8 saved searches at a time (and replace ones that are no longer relevant), and only use 3 or 4 of them with much frequency. Depending on which machine (home or work) I am using, the frequently used searches go onto the favorites bar. Aside from that, I tend to use ad hoc searches, in the same way that I search on Google, which most people seem to be able to use without saving searches.

0 - Favorites bar works fine for me.

But not irrelevant to the comment I quoted. What's your point?

The way that I look at is is as follows: first, a stack is just a container of notebooks. Notebooks in a stack inherit nothing from being in a stack. Currently you can search a stack, rename it or delete it, export all of its notes, or move notebooks in and out. And currently, all of the sharing framework (logic and operations) for groups of notes is in the notebook. You can share a notebook with the world, or with a set of individuals. Since stacks cannot be shared, but notebooks can, someone who receives a shared notebook can create their own stacks to organize their own view of the world. So now let's assume that you can "share stacks". So what does that mean? Two choices that i can see: 1) that all of the notebooks in that stack are shared alike, or 2) all of the notebooks currently in the stack get the same sharing operation (to the world, or to some set of individuals) applied to them in sequence. For option 2, I see no problems. Each notebook currently in the stack receives the new sharing conditions and adds them to its current set of sharing options. Since this is a one shot operation, all of the sharing logic remains with the notebook. Notebooks can move in and out of the stack, have their sharing conditions modified freely, all without affecting any other notebooks. Option 1 is where I see more potential for difficulties, or at least some messier questions to resolve. The stack now needs to participate in the sharing framework. So, on the owner's end, some questions. If the owner moves a notebook out of a stack that has been shared, does the notebook lose those sharing options? If the owner moves a notebook into a shared stack, does it of necessity gain that stack's sharing options? And on the sharee's end, is the user still allowed to organize shared notebooks freely any more, with respect to creating their own stack system? Another thing to consider; since you can share a notebook individually as well as sharing it as a member of a stack, you need to "do the math" on the sharing options of the stack and the individual notebook to determine who it's visible to, and for what operations. Is that 'math' awkward, and will it lead to surprising results? I hasten to add that I don't really know the answers to the above questions. This is how I would start breaking down the problem; I'm not sure what other factors might come into play. Option 1 seems messier to me, and maybe the messiness is surmountable, but I can't tell for sure yet. Option 2 seems straightforward: it's a one shot deal on the owner's end, and off you go, but maybe I've missed something there too..

Notebooks can already be shared. This thread is about sharing stacks of notebooks.

gazumped is basically correct; Evernote chooses the thumbnail for the snippet. The procedure used, at least the last time that anyone from Evernote commented on it is something called the 'largest smallest dimension'; it's explained here: http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/18482-choosing-a-thumbnail/page__hl__largest%20smallest

As far as I know, Evernote doesn't search attachments, except for PDF files. So I don't think that your PHP attachment will be searched. Tip: It was a little hard to figure out what you were trying to do; it helps to use the correct Evernote terminology. Evernote doesn't have folders or pages, it has stacks, notebooks and notes. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by 'export'.Exporting to Evernote format preserves tags. Export to HTML doesn't, as far as I can tell, though.

@baumgarr: a lot of devs have difficulties with UI design; just spotted this article (by one of my favorite tech writers) on the topic: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2012/01/16/a_design_primer_for_engineers.html. For your copious spare time

@spktpkt: Developers generally prefer to hear specific comments about deficiencies, rather than blanket statements like "the UI is horrible". Did you take the time to point out what you thought was so bad to baumgarr?

Got it, makes sense. It's not Enterprise-first, but Evernote-first, with an eye towards Enterprise. Thanks, Geoff.

Coming from a bit further back, the Enterprise was a less-emphasized problem space for Evernote, at least that's the impression I got from Dave E. My own take is (and was) that enterprise is going to want more involved sharing facilities; so long as the easy things stay easy, then that's fine. I do agree that shared resources ought to have the same capabilities as normal resource, modulo owner's permissions, of course.

@Gimpster: Please read the discussions jbenson2 posted, it is *not* the largest image that is used. On the other hand, overriding the system-selected image used would be a nice improvement. It's not clear to me that that's something that is transferred with the note; it may be determined on-the-fly by the client (I haven't been able to figure it out by looking at an exported .ENEX file yet), though I suppose it's also possible that that's determined by a call to the server, too.

There are no better workarounds than cut'n'paste.

@jwbeyer (et al): I guess that the questions in my mind would be: If I share a stack with others, is it a one-off deal, or should I expect any changes (e.g. add or remove a notebook) that I make to the stack synchronize to the sharees. Can a sharee add or remove a notebook to the stack on their end? If it's just a one-off thing, then that would be a convenience, and maybe not hard to implement. Full stack synchronization across multiple sharees would be a different beast, I think. BTW, there are plenty of serious users of Evernote who do not need sharing, so this is not a fundamental use case for these users. On the other hand, if you've been evaluating the market, then surely you've found some other solution, or are you disappointed in the entire market as well? Also, as this is a user forum, Evernote staff do not always comment on issues, and they rarely give timetables for future product directions. They do sometimes, but I wouldn't expect it.