Jump to content

jefito

Level 5*
  • Content Count

    18,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    307

Everything posted by jefito

  1. Having already suggested '+tag:' and 'tagtree:' previously in this thread (I now think that 'tags:' would be better than 'tagtree'), 'tag:+' is spelling variant on the same concept. The latter might be a little problematic for anyone who , for whatever reason, uses a '+' character on the end of their tag names, but then again a similar problem already exists for someone who uses a '*' character there; both are currently accepted by the Windows UI (the '+ seems to work). One further refinement to the basic concept that would probably be required/desired: a way to search for tag + immediate children and also a way to recursively search on tag + all children. Hey, how about 'tag+:' and 'tag*:'? How these all sort themselves out w.r.t other tags in the search, 'any:'/'all:' combinations, etc. is open to further analysis. I'd be disinclined to want a special mode, via a checkbox or Preference, if it prevented a user from mixing and matching search types. The other end of things is making it easier for people to apply a tag and all of its parents to a note in one shot. In interacting with the tag tree, in Windows at least Ctrl+click and Shift+click to do this with the selected tag might have been possibilities, but as discussed, they're already taken (maybe alt+click?), but a right-click menu option with something like "Apply tag and parents to note" would probably be OK. The Assign Tags dialog and the Note tag control are more problematic. One question would be whether this operation was static: the tag and its parents are all added as-is, and remain so, even if the tag is moved elsewhere in the tree, or dynamic: its parent tags are recomputed if the tag is moved.
  2. That's cute, jbenson. I'm certainly nerdy enough to get the joke. Even so, I'd rate this as an interesting idea rather than great, and I have some doubts as to how widespread demand for this would be. Not that it's wholly conclusive, but i founds only three threads in the forum from a search of 'latex', plus some google hits.
  3. I guess a question would be how you would disambiguate between this use of '$' delimiters and other uses of '$' that don't designate LaTex, in a backward compatible way? I would think that this makes things not-so-simple. Probably means storing the original source into an 'alt' attribute, and then you need to interpret all of those for the special LaTeX delimiters too.
  4. I certainly disagree with the characterization of the situation as stated in your 'bottom line' for reasons stated. And there is concrete discussion here in this thread on the topic that you profess to want to discuss. If you want discuss actual issues, then do that.
  5. This seems like a false issue; I find that there is actually little debate on that score, at least among the folks who comment here regularly. Indeed, a lot of the commentary in that direction really tends to be from the folks who encounter Evernote's system and post here about the lack of 'true' hierarchical facilities (e.g. "you've got to be kidding", et al)' as if they expect that Evernote is going to turn around and say "OMG!! We totally missed that. Wow, we need to fix that right away!". But I think I can guarantee you that the Evernote folks are and have been aware of this, and have considered the many aspects behind the scenes, and I don't actually need to see evidence of that to believe it: it's what software developers do. But ultimately, reality is what we have now is probably going to be in place for the foreseeable future; consider the time it's taken to roll stacks out across all devices (a work still in progress, I think), for example. On to the actual topic of this thread, hierarchical tags. Given Dave's comment (http://forum.evernote.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=21700#p92672, and despite what you think of the value of Evernote staff statements), I'd expect the tagging system to stay the same for the present. So the more practical question in my mind tend towards how can we make the current system work? To that end, you may have noticed that there actually was respectful, constructive commentary; my angle was on how to make the current tagging scheme more friendly towards folks who want a little more hierarchy in their Evernoting lives, based on the theory that small, more incremental changes are more implementable than grand systemic changes. The real bottom line, for me, is that it's fine to propose things for Evernote to implement, but we still need to be able to work with what is there today, because there's no guarantee that our suggestions will ever be realized. So go ahead, start your debate/design/discussion, but please don't think that you can pre-censor or otherwise control how people will interact with it, because believe it or not, other people may see things differently than you do.
  6. There is no magic thread; this is the way that it is. The tag tree is an organizational structure and does not imply subclassing, an inheritance hierarchy, or what-have-you. It's evidently a deliberate choice, with no announced plans to change it. Some folks can't cope with it, and others it doesn't bother. The topic's been discussed at great length elsewhere -- feel free to search the forums -- but for now, that's how it works.
  7. When you found problems, did you report them to baumgarr (the Nevernote developer)?
  8. You're paying Evernote for what it actually does, not what you assumed it does. However, if you're dissatisfied, you can most likely get a refund.
  9. As I understand it, it's a Chrome browser thing that extensions are dismissed when they lose focus; the other extensions that I use in Chrome do the same thing -- maybe that will change someday. Browser extensions / plug-ins / what-have-yous work differently because there are no standards for them. Under Chrome, at least for now, you'll just have to wait...
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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)!
  14. I believe that that's a known behavior, related to how how Chrome manages its extensions. I couldn't find a backing post for this by Evernote staff in a quick search, though I believe that there's at least one. ~Jeff
  15. I'll have to wait until I get home and install IE9RC on my Win7 machine there and try things out; we've not switched over to Win7 here at work (but soon, though). ~Jeff
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. I haven't downloaded IE9RC yet, and it's not been released yet, so the standard IE web clipper may not work. Have you tried the booknmarklet, availabe down towards the bottom of this page: http://www.evernote.com/about/download/web_clipper.php? ~Jeff
  20. A prior discussion here: http://forum.evernote.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=19924&p=83399. ~Jeff
  21. The place to open a support inquiry is at the bottom of this page: http://www.evernote.com/about/contact/support/. Evernote staff do read and sometimes post in the forums, but it's not really the best place to get support from them, though sometimes another user might have a solution, so it's worth posting in the forums, too. ~Jeff
  22. This is a user forum, and not really intended as a support forum. Did you file a support ticket? ~Jeff
  23. 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
  24. 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
×
×
  • Create New...