Jump to content


Level 5*
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jefito

  1. When you found problems, did you report them to baumgarr (the Nevernote developer)?
  2. Yes, you can say that, and I believe that your opinion is welcomed by Evernote staff. Me, I don't really care to organize my notes in hierarchical folders, as tags are plenty for me. I understand that others want that, but I've seen no interest in providing that in anything I've read by Evernote staff, so it's a moot point for me.
  3. Color me impressed. In a quick (and incomplete) test, everything seemed in order. Saved searches were a little slow to finish, and PDFs were slow to display. But I liked the zoom feature, and everything else I tried seemed to be in order.
  4. Hi baumgarr, I was tempted to try running it on Windows, but them I stopped. Has it been tried running in parallel with Evernote? I suppose that you use separate databases, so it's probably safe, except for the possibility of getting note conflicts. thanks for your work -- very noble.
  5. For the Linux users who may not know about this, there's an open source Linux Evernote client now available -- NeverNote -- that was just written up in a Lifehacker post: http://lifehacker.com/#!5762376/nevernote-is-an-open-source-evernote-client-designed-for-linux-no-wine-required. According to the story, it's a Java app, and therefore can also work for Windows and Mac OS users as well (I haven't verified that). NeverNote home page: http://nevernote.sourceforge.net/index.htm SourceForge page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nevernote/ Congratulations to forum member baumgarr, the NeverNote developer (and anyone else involved)!
  6. I think you'll find that the search grammar underlies all note searching and filtering (per the Evernote API), therefore, if recursive search was to be supported, it would need to be supported there. If you want a global setting to govern recursive searching, then you'd have a conflict if you also allowed mixed recursive and non-recursive searches in the grammar (who wins, the literal search that the user typed in, or the global setting that the user may or may not have set explicitly?). Aside from that, there's the matter of where to put it: the controls that affect searching (e.g. Any/All, Notebook selection, etc) are, in the Windows client, kept in the Search info area; these can also affect selections in the Notebook and Tag lists, but interacting directly with the notebook and tag lists are conversely not affected by settings in the search area. So that's really not a good candidate location for the global setting such as you suggest. On the other hand, putting it in Options makes it hidden, and hidden modes are not often a great UI choice. You could also put it in the toolbar, but that's already a bit crowded, and isn't used for mode settings anyways currently. So, a bit of a sticky UI problem. Me? I'd just put it as a control in the Tag list, and have its setting affect only filtering actuated from there. But that's just me, and truth be told, this is all hypothetical anyway, since I've never seen any actual sign that Evernote was interested in such functionality (not that they tell me their plans anyway). I think that recursive tag search could help some folks here make better use of the tagging system (jbenson2, I'm looking at you ), but I'm not sure that I'm one of them. ~Jeff
  7. No, I very much disagree with that. The search tool should, as much as possible, accept the search grammar literally' and not reflect (also as much as possible) hidden search modes. In particular, you should be able to mix recursive and non-recursive searches in this (currently hypo0thetical and mythical) search grammar extension. ~Jeff
  8. I think that any change in UI-based search behavior would also need to be reflected in the search grammar, so that it can be used in saved searches. That is, if you want a recursive tag search, you'd probably need to have support that in the search grammar. Elsewhere I've suggested a change to the grammar for recursive searches that uses "+tag:tagname", which would match notes that have tag 'tagname' or any of its children. Alternatively they could introduce a new search term, say 'tagtree', to something similar. We'd probably want to have negation as well, either '-+tag:tagname' (awkward looking) or '-tagtree' to match notes that do not contain any of tag 'tagtree' or its children. ~Jeff
  9. A prior discussion here: http://forum.evernote.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=19924&p=83399. ~Jeff
  10. We've had this suggestion before, back a couple of months ago. Basically means having a separate field (or index) that tracks manual order, which changes when you move notes around, possibly cascading into other notes (e.g. I have notes in order 1, 2 and 3, I move 3 above 2 and so must change both 2 and 3's sort order index -- swaps them in this case). Also gets a little messy and possible confusing if I am viewing a filtered list (via notebook or tag or saved search), and start moving things around: how does it affect other notes not currently being viewed? ~Jeff
  11. I think that about the best that you can do other than having a special Archived notebook is to add an "Archived" tag, and tag notes accordingly. When you want to search your unarchived notes, you just add "-tag:Archived" to your search. Using the "Archived" tag also allows you to focus specifically on archived notes. ~Jeff
  12. Um, I think that he meant that that would be confusing behavior, i.e., not a beautiful thing, at least to some. Regardless, I think that Evernote's design is pretty well set for the foreseeable future, though as discussed above, I think that there are some things that Evernote could do to help out the folks who want some support for a classification-style hierarchy. ~Jeff
  13. I also prefer the way that it operates now, bu toccasionally I do wish for a separate (and not default) operation that allows us to apply a tags and its parents to a note, and I think that some folks might want that more than occasionally... ~Jeff
  14. Oh, I didn't disagree with the idea, just wanted to point out that shift-click was already taken. I can see how you might also want to augment the search grammar via, say (and this is where Dave twitches offscreen ), prefixing the 'tag:' modifier with a '+' sign: '+tag:MyTag' would search for all notes containing tag 'MyTag' and all of its children (and maybe its their children, etc.). Or something like that... ~Jeff
  15. Very much agree, and this fits in with... Actually, for me, it *is* the point. Tags function for me like adjectives, and I prefer to keep them short, few in number and flexible. In English at least we don't have separate 'red' adjectives for the separate objects that 'red' may describe, and similarly I don't mind overloading a tag for different contexts. Presence of other tags often determines context in my scheme, so I might have tags "computer", "language" and "python" (common and reusable tags) rather than a specialized "python-language" tag. And I can organize my tag tree (which has ~90 tags) as convenient to me, without worrying about it too much -- most of the time I keep all but the top-level branches closed in the UI. So ultimately, the way that Evernote is designed works pretty well for me. At some point in the past when this debate flared up before (there was plenty of discussion on all of this back then), I proposed at least making it easier for tags-as-classification thinkers to apply a tag and all of its parents to a note as a separate operation. This kinda dovetails with your idea, which I think is a reasonable request, except for the shift-click bit, since the tag tree -- at least in the Windows client -- uses the standard shift-click, ctrl-click sequences for multi-selections. And I agree with this too. ~Jeff
  16. Like Dave said, it's a design choice, one that works for some (me, for example), but not for everyone. It really reflects that tags are descriptive terms with multiple meanings, depending on unrelated contexts. For example, if I were a herpetologist and a software developer, I might reasonably have a 'Python' tag, but where would it live if the tag structure was truly hierarchical, and not just an organizational scheme? If I put it in one branch (say, Snakes / Python), then the other (Computer / Computer Languages / Python) loses out: Hey, I'm just looking for my snakes, but I keep getting Dell and Apple and Ruby. But with the current design, I can put it in the tag tree wherever its convenient for me, and use it freely in any context where one if its meanings fits. ~Jeff
  17. By virtue of it having been suggested, I'm sure it's on the list... ~Jeff
  18. I think that they have a legalistic 'out' on Linux, since you can still use the Web to access your notes. After all, it doesn't say "works natively"... ~Jeff
  19. My guess is that the answer shouldn't be too surprising: the resources to do a Linux app, vs. the potential market share gain. It should be no secret that Evernote in its heart would like to support every platform that there is, including Morse code and that CP/M machine you have mouldering down in the basement behind that old Nordic Trak machine, but they do have limits on their resources. Potential market share is limited so my feeling is that Linux is a bit down the list. Besides, with a published API, and that can-do Linux spirit, maybe a third-party developer might want to take up the cause... ~Jeff
  20. I'd like to raise the stakes on this one. I didn't use Evernote in the good old days of wine, roses and autotagging (i.e. I don't know exactly how autotagging worked), but I do use GMail, and one of its best features is its ability to set up filtering rules based on various email criteria (I do this in Outlook a lot as well). I want to be able to easily and automatically categorize my notes as I gleefully fling them into the gaping maw of the that omnivorous, information sucking (hoovering for our British cousins) beast that Evernote is at heart. Let me control what notebook to route my note to, what tags to apply, and whatever other metadata to be set, based on note content, title content, note source, my location or whatever else makes sense. We should be able to apply this as notes come in to the system, or an an ad hoc basis, to make mass note management tasks easier. Maybe this is n not needed now, but in the future, when note volumes for folks like BurgersNFries or jbenson start to exceed the 100s of thousands, this might come in handy. I promise not to say 'I told you so'. ~Jeff
  21. Nope. The only workaround that I can think of is to copy a piece of text with the formatting that you want (one character should do it), and paste it in to the place that you want to use the formatting, then type what you want. Then go back and delete the piece that you pasted. For example: Here's my starting point: "Here is my text with fancy styling. I want the same fancy styling " Pick up the 'f', and paste it at the end of the second sentence: "Here is my text with fancy styling. I want the same fancy styling f" Type the rest of your text: "Here is my text with fancy styling. I want the same fancy styling fhere." Delete the pasted bit: "Here is my text with fancy styling. I want the same fancy styling here." But there's no way to apply a formatting style to an existing piece of text that I know of. Not up to me. It'd be a nice touch, though. ~Jeff
  22. I would guess that the answer is no, at least for the short term. Evernote is primarily a cross-platform note capture and storage mechanism, with facilities for note taking. It's not meant to be a replacement for dedicated to-do lists, project planners or mind-mappers. ~Jeff
  23. I already knew 'detritus', it's come in handy in my recent stint of refactoring some old libraries of ours (some of it's at least 14 years old). New work rule: we pay double for removing code. ~Jeff
  • Create New...