jefito

Subtags are certainly displayed in the Android tag UI, but not in a single tree as with, say, the Windows tag list. You need to tap down through the hierarchy to get to subtags. The web versions (current and beta) also expose the tag hierarchy.

The URL is already included in the clip, but it's not added to the note body. It's available in the note Info, which you can access in various ways on the various Evernote clients. In the Windows client, this is on the note editor panel's toolbar by default (the icon is the letter 'i' in a circle). Also in the Windows client, you can also see it in list view if you include the "Source URL" field

I can confirm this. I pasted a ~8000 line source file into an empty Evernote notes. and selecting text using the left mouse or using Ctrl+ arrow keys is pretty laggy. For what it's worth, one of the editing subprocesses goes almost immediately to 12.8 or so percent. There is only a 32-bit version currently. Not sure that that would make any difference. Don't know how this works; it sure doesn't for me.

Oh, the irony... oh wait, but it doesn't have Markdown, either...

Pertains to the web clipper, so moving to appropriate forum...

This is a WIndows-specific subforum. You should post issues relating to the Evernote for Mac product here: https://discussion.evernote.com/forum/219-evernote-for-mac/

Windows? Mac? Android? iOS? Web?

No, not in Evernote at this time.

Please go to the previously cited feature request(s) and add your vote.

OK. Moved to Windows Feature Request forum. Cheers.

If you let us know which device you're using, then we can move this topic into a feature request subforum.

Not on Windows either.

Current web version, or beta? In the current version: open the tag list by clicking on the tag icon in the left column. Find the tag you'ds looking for, and hover your mouse over it. To the right, some icons should appear. Hover over the trash can, you'll see the text "Delete tag" below. Click on the trash can icon, and you'll be asked whether you want to delete the tag.Select "yes". In the beta version, I don't think that you can do it.

You're welcome, and no problem. Better to have a good answer for an accidentally off-topic post than to have no answer at all. Cheers.

Not related to the original topic. However: Tools / Options / Clipping : uncheck "Launch Annotate after screenshots"

As I understand it, the standard search grammar (the one that allows for tag, notebook, reminder, etc. as well as literal text) runs its text search against an index that's created specifically for matching word prefixes in all of your notes. This makes search a lot faster, but doesn't really scale to infix searches. That being said, it would be nice to have the ability to override that behavior in the search language (example: the presence of a leading '*' in the text string would be an easy case, since '*''s aren't matched literally), and let the user take the time penalty. For large note databases, that would be a lot slower., since they have to access the text for each note, rather than the pre-built indexes. Searching individual notes in parallel would probably help some with that.

Sure, but if your customers are still using it, you don't want to freeze them out. We still do a 32-bit application for that reason, though we also do a 64-bit version, which is much better for the things we do (geographic rendering and analysis, we need to handle very large data sets sometimes). Took a while to shake out any 32-bit assumptions for the 64-bit code, and make everything build off the same code base, but it's pretty seamless now. The decision oint, I guess, is how much of a pain point that is vs. the fact that 32-bit versions still run fine on 64-bit OS's. Our experience is that they run fine.

So add them, pretty easy to do.

As far as I know, the "Classic" version is not available to all Evernote users. It was grandfathered in for existing users at around the time the "current" version came out. I tend to jump back and forth between the "beta" version and the "current" version, as suits my needs, which are minimal with respect to the web client, since I don't use it all that often. You're welcome. Evernote did kinda drop the beta on users unexpectedly; I only knew because I tend to follow the forum pretty closely, at least for the devices I use. There was no email; there may have been a notification when I first used the beta, but I can't recall. Hope it all works out for your team.

For people using the new web client, you should note that it's marked as "beta". You can go back to the current version in your settings.

I'd hope that you'd be someone who'd know...

Exactly. And that's what's causing my cognitive dubiety. The simple upshot is that if you have 10,000 items (notes or external resources) to index, you need at least 10,000 links, whether they're links to other Evernote notes or to external resources. If everything branches from 9 categories, that's ~900 links per branch. And everything branches onwards from from those. You have not addressed how you manage the scale problem. You don't get to make that disappear by claiming it's "intuitive". The numbers overwhelm the happy trip down the linked garden path, I'm afraid. The organizational overhead alone is something I really don't want to invest in, as it doesn't express the things I want to see in Evernote But hey, if you really truly think that your approach is the magic fixit for Evernote's woes, then you ought to make it a real feature request in the General Feature Request forum, here: https://discussion.evernote.com/forum/304-general-feature-requests/. Then other users, and possibly Evernote staffers, can comment and vote on it. Beyond that, I think I'm done here. Your method may work well for you, and might work for others, but it would never work for me, and I'd guess, a not insubstantial number of existing Evernote users. It would just plain not be the Evernote that fits my usage and workflows so well. I'm not prepared to build my house using only a hammer. Good luck.

No, but the current branding guidelines now dictate use of Comic Sans headers in the left panel... Seriously, Ian, welcome to Evernote, and best wishes. I'm well past the middle-age crisis age where I need (or want) to upgrade to a newer flashier model (it'd all be lost on me)...

[Advice/request: please learn to use the forum quoting facilities to make it easier to see exactly who/what you are replying to. Otherwise you lose the flow.] You seem to have missed the point that tags and notebooks connect notes semantically; it's as valid a connection as direct connections, and perhaps even more powerful. The missing "C" in your slogan is "Categorize". I'd put it before "Connect" in my version: even a link-based system requires you to mentally categorize a new note, since you need to figure out where to put it. If you con't categorize, then you cannot connect. I'm curious as to how your linking strategy plays out in real life, on a note database that's of some size, say 10,000 or more notes. Remember, you need as many links as you do notes (actually more, as we will see). So just as a thought experiment let's do a little math. In order to link up all of your notes, you need to add artificial index notes to contain the links. Let's assume that for convenience sake, you want your system to be feasible on all devices, including phones, and let's assume that 20 items on a phone display fits on a the first page of an index note. 20 items is a lot to examine by eye, (as before, 7 +/- 2 is a cognitively better number) but it's do-able; but if you have to page through an index note to find the next link, that makes your system a lot less "intuitive" (whatever that means) and convenient. OK, so first problem: now you need to set up, and maintain, 500 index notes to contain the bottom level links, 125 index notes to link to the previous index notes, and 6 or so index notes to link to the previous level. That's if you want a balanced tree. 636 notes. You've inflated your note database by greater than 2%, just for purposes of indexing, and you now need to figure out your tree structure and maintain it as you grow your note database. Second problem: given the assumed limit of 20 items per index note, you cannot index 10000 notes in 3 levels (20 * 20 * 20 = 8000). So something has to give: either the number of levels required to find any note, which breaks your "3 intuitive clicks" rule, or the 20 items per page, which breaks my not unreasonable assumption; i'd actually argue that 10 or fewer is much more easily navigable, for cognitive reasons, but that forces the required number of artificial index notes to be far higher. Third problem: with everything being 3 clicks away, then that's the minimum amount of work you need to do to find a note. Using notebooks and tags, I can easily surface currently useful notes in two clicks: click on "Todo" notebook, click on "Weekly Journal" note (which is the main driver of my weekly workflow) or other pertinent notes (thanks, reminders!). I'll stop there, as this approach seems infeasible over time and large numbers of notes. But this view of a link-based system is based mainly on conjecture; what am I missing in the mechanics of your solution? Other notes: is it a property of your system that each note is reachable by a single sequence of intuitive clicks, or can you get to a note via multiple paths? The former implies that the user has a fixed notion of the unique place in a hierarchy a note belongs, and doesn't miss a click on the way down. The latter implies even more index notes = more work to create and maintain. Forgive me if I don't see this as the panacea to the problem of getting newcomers to Evernote to latch onto it as a solution to their needs, much less as a scalable solution to growing a serious notes database in a feasible, extensible manner. In my view, a solely link-based Evernote would be a disaster. I'd certainly have to switch to something else, and I'd hardly be alone. Thankfully, I'm pretty certain that Evernote will never do such a foolish thing.

Ha -- welcome to the world of language. Synonyms are a thing... Generally we're in control of our own tag vocabularies (speaking as a solo user, not as a group participant). Since I don't use tags for navigation, the largest part of any tag maintenance that I do (which is not a lot) is figuring out inadvertent tag synonyms, and paring them down. Occasional rainy-day stuff. An interesting improvement might be the addition of ways to specifying that certain tags are synonymous, so that a search for "tag:banking" would turn up notes tagged with "banks" and "bankers". Not that those words are actually synonymous; they're related for sure, but they don't mean the same thing. And obviously I know that you already know that a search for "tag:bank*" matches all of these.