jefito

Remember also that Evernote can tell which clients are being used by which users (though maybe not which users are using, say, the Windows client in a virtual machine or under Wine), and would be in a position to know how big the Blackberry market is. Remember also that the Blackberry client is a development effort that's already happened, probably most of which was when Blackberry was a lot stronger in the marketplace. Whereas a Linux client would most likely be a whole brand-new port, with maybe some code carry-over from some other existing client, depending on which language they choose. Regardless, I see this as unlikely at this stage, knowing what they've said, and also the fact that there are now two third-party Linux clients out there.

Perhaps we disagree, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't think that we need to argue the point. It's certainly a valid choice; your opinions (including lobbying for nested folders) are welcome here, full stop. It's all a practical matter to me. You don't have arbitrarily nesting of notebooks in Evernote, but you do have tags. That's a fact. And Evernote does understand that there are a number of people who want arbitrarily nested notebooks. They can't have missed the issue; there's plenty of forum discussion relating to the idea. But they have chosen not to deliver it to date. That's also a fact. So in dealing with folks who lobby for nested notebooks (some of whom do not understand the expressive power of tags, some of who clearly do), I feel compelled to let them know that tags are what are available in Evernote, and they are really very useful. If they weren't, I wouldn't be using Evernote. As far as I am concerned, tags are how you do organization in Evernote, if you're doing explicit organization. If that's a defense (or 'defence'; vive la difference! ), then so be it. Ultimately, I'd rather focus on how to use the tools that we have in hand today. Let's face it, if Evernote were to offer nested notebooks, how many of those 'cautious users' would actually make the transition? Not many, I'd guess; they'd just continue to use their familiar folders. GMail doesn't cater to that audience either, for that matter. And it's not just a matter of simply adding nested folders; there's a whole raft of underpinnings that would need to be changed across the entire Evernote architecture, plus a lot of UI changes that would need to be made across the range of clients. I don't see it happening any time soon, though obviously that's not my choice. My guess is that Evernote, as a company (but who knows about renegade Evernote employees? ), doesn't believe that it needs to offer nested notebooks to be useful.

Nobody said that it isn't a legitimate action. However, you need to be prepared for it to take some time before they deliver such a feature (and they may never do so), and put up with a product that doesn't do what you want in the meantime. So in the here and now, you pretty much have only two practical choices.

Nested notebooks is a long-standing request. Evernote has chosen not to offer it as a feature (though you can put multiple notebooks into stacks). For the time being at least, it would probably be better to try to come to terms with tagging as an organization tool.

Yes, I think that most of us understand all of that. And it's a valid request, but Evernote chooses not to offer this feature. Please refer to the copious amount of discussion on the topic in the forums. And in the mean time, I'd suggest giving tags another look (and yes, you can nest tags).

I think I figured that out when I did a filter on a stack, and then saved it as a saved search. Hope it helps with BitQwik!

Hey, whoa, funny thing about that. You can actually organize tags in Evernote, yes, in a hierarchical fashion. "Gettouttahere", I can hear you say. But it's true -- it may be a little-known secret in Evernote that you can do this, why they've only been in place for two or three years. Well who knew?? But yes, you can position them, in perceived and visual space. Sort of like... um, ... those things... you know.. like.. um... oh, yes. Folders! Those totally concrete constructs, folders, why, I can reach right out and touch them. Well you can do that with tags in Evernote, too, right? Right? And now back to what I actually meant: the reason that I wrote what I wrote is that he did say this: " tags seem abstract to me. Maybe I just don't get tags, yet." I totally got that they are abstract to him. I took it as a sincere statement. That's why I offered several analogous concepts, across several disciplines, that he might be able to better hook onto mentally: labels (used by GMail, as well as having physical analogues), categories (Outlook), keywords (science and academia), adjectives (natural language constructs that all English speakers should be familiar with). And you can organize them visually and hierarchically in Evernote, just like folders in a file system. But here's the bonus: you can do things with tags that you simply cannot do with notebooks. And that was the point of the simple illustration I included. Please feel free to point out, via quote, where I or anyone else said that folders were wrong. I doubt very much that you'll be able to.

According to the Evernote folks (Dave Engberg, I believe), stacks were added mainly for the ability to organize your notebooks in the UI. Working with a straight list of 100 (the limit then, now it's 250) wasn't that great. So in some sense, stacks are artificial (but then again, what part of Evernote isn't?? ). At some point (can't remember exactly when), the ability to search against a stack using the stack: term was added to the search grammar. So in that sense, stacks are supported at a deeper level than the mere cosmetic.

Tags are not particularly abstract; they really are nothing more than labels that you can apply to a note: think category, or keyword, or even adjective. Tags are generally more flexible than notebooks because while a note belongs to exactly one notebook, a note may have more than one tag. So you can cross-categorize (i.e., categorize using more than one categorization scheme) notes using tags, whereas with notebooks, you are pretty much stuck with one categorization scheme. So for example, if you were to wanted to categorize your books (one note per book), you might make be interested in categorizing by author, and by genre genre. Doing that strictly using notebooks wouldn't be all that great; do you have notebooks for each author, or for each genre, But some books have multiple authors, and some authors write in multiple genres. Instead, use tags, and you can apply author tags and genre tags as needed.

Not really sure that I want more power or responsibility, outside what a moderator can do. I started out on the old forums, learned a little bit about Evernote from other users, thought that Evernote was a cool idea, got into the discussion, and lo, it just sorta became a 'thing'. I like to help out because I still think that Evernote is cool & useful, but sometimes it's a little bit unapproachable for new folks, and if I can pitch them a hint or two, then maybe they'll think it's cool/useful too. That being said, I'm not obligated to be here every day; I can respond to as many or few posts as I care to, and I don't need to worry about it. I have a job, and that's enough, this is mainly for fun, though there's enough interesting ideas around Evernote that it's interesting to me.

My take on this is that I would rather have sort order be specifiable in the search grammar, so that we could persist them in saved searches. This would allow me to sort notes that go together in an appropriate fashion, whatever notebooks they reside in. if The sticky point for having notebooks be able to specify their sort orders is what do you do if you're displaying notes from two or more notebooks that have different ordering? Fall back to the global sort order, maybe?

As it happens, not one of the evangelists claims that Evernote "can do no wrong", but since we have no real power to change anything and don't really know much more about Evernote's internal goals than any other user, we find it's usually more realistic to deal with the way that Evernote exists currently and offer workarounds. If that comes off as defending the company overmuch to you, so be it. *shrug* Of course, if you want to help out the community, you're welcome to teach by example; I can tell you that the condition of evangelitis is pretty much self-inflicted.

You might try checking your activity log (Help / Activity Log) around the times you are experiencing the delays; that might shed some light. Best bet is probably to file a support request. See the link in my signature.

Yes, that's probably the best way forward in cases like these, where Evernote probably doesn't see the need as being great enough to justify the effort. The problem is making it worth the effort to 3rd-party devs (noting that some of them do it for the best reason, which is "just because I needed it and thought that it would be useful to others").

No way that I know of -- in-note find is text only as far as I can tell.

Is there some reason that tags do not give you that extra level of organization that you need?

Thanks for posting the requested quotes. So here's what you asserted. Here's your quote: You should note that "those of you who think tags are a better solution" (which itself is a quote from Vlaak, the original poster) actually refers to people like BnF, not people arguing for sub-notebooks. In other words, BnF is saying "It doesn't matter what I think, it's how Evernote functions". Did you misunderstand this? So I'm not sure how this relates; this isn't arguing again people posting at all (if by this you mean "arguing that people should post"; your sentence is a little unclear). It's really an explanation that if you want to use Evernote well, you need to deal with the reality of how Evernote works today, not how you wish it would work, which is sensible advice. But there's nothing saying that people can't make suggestions. I saw no-one at claiming that suggestions are not welcome. Here's what you asserted. Here's your quote: Again, sensible advice. If you use a tool (or any product, really), and it doesn't work the way that you want it to, then you're well-advised to use another on, or at least seek alternatives. How is that saying, at all, that it doesn't matter what a poster thinks? Here's what you asserted. Here's your quote: I think that the relevant statement is "It doesn't appear that this will change any time soon". This sounds like an opinion to me, one that's based on over 4 years of observing Evernote's actions, and the evolution of Evernote's products. And that's really what we have to go on -- our own experiences and observations, as Evernote do not tend to release planned feature changes. BnF doesn't know whether they'll add them any time soon, of at all, I don't and neither do you. I'm sorry, but I don't think that your quotes backed up what you claimed.

@ever111: did you actually read what BnF wrote? Plenty of information there,by my interpretation. Really? Provide a quote, please. Please provide a quote for that assertion. Please provide a quote for that assertion.

'Feasible' doesn't mean the same thing as 'easy'. I've had plenty of experience doing diffs of source files, less of binaries, but it can be done. I don't think I need examples to understand that. But thanks anyways.

Without trying to prolong the discussion, you have every right to compliment or criticize Evernote and their products, absolutely. But when you do so in public, you might find someone who disagrees with you, and, this being a user forum, they have the same right to disagree with you. That being said, I do understand what you're asking for; I'm not so sure that a lot of people have the problem, though (Evernote certainly does, as it can track that through their servers). I'm guessing that Evernote is aware of the issue (since the Conflicting Notes notebook exists, at all, right?). You're the first person that I can recall asking for a note comparison facility as part of Evernote, though. I can see some pluses and minuses to that. As it is now, there's no such facility, but comparing via an external tool is feasible, if awkward; that's why I suggested it.

The purpose of coming to Evenote is to bring all information that you read across various places in the web, save and concentrate content to a single organizing and archiving center. If Evenote has been around for so long and has versioning of notes, then the obvious logical step would be to have an integrated version comparing system within its own framework. If Evernote were primarily a content versioning system, then it might be a logical and obvious step, but they're not. They do maintain, on their servers, and at intervals not controlled by the user, note histories, available to premium users, but that's not the same thing. If it's the only way to get a comparison at this time, then it's not stupid to use it as a workaround. I agree that this would be a useful feature, particularly if conflicts are common (I've had no more than three in over four years), but if that's the only reason that you have for giving Evernote a thumbs-down, then it seems to me that you're slighting the things that they do well.

This is a gross mischaracterization of what I and other Evangelists are saying. All of the Evangelists that I know of have their own ideas of what could change in Evernote to improve it, and we say these things publicly. My opinion is that LaTex is a valid request, but that its target audience is probably too small -- despite its genuine utility for that audience -- to make it a high priority, That's just a guess, as Evernote doesn't reveal its feature roadmaps to users like you and me. "Nerd"-iness has zero to do with any of this. The real truth is described by a simple math that you don't need LaTex to render: Evernote does not have enough development resources to implement all useful suggestions. Hence, there is no LaTex at this time. Or improved search facilities (my hobby-horse). Or Markdown. Etc., etc. Of course, if you have some concrete numbers on the size of the LaTex-using population vs. the size of the general computer using population that would make your case stronger, then by all means, produce them.

As a feature request, this area is pretty well known to the Evernote development teams. I am sure that they know all of the pros and cons. It's been requested/debated for as long as I've been coming to these forums, and probably longer. And who knows, maybe they'll deliver this type of feature someday; they don't tend to preannounce such things, though. So for now, at least, they've chosen the stack/notebook/note/tag architecture that they have. It's definitely usable, and not that difficult conceptually, based for the most part on common physical analogs: A note is the smallest unit of Evernote content. You can store text (possibly HTML-based), images and attachments in a note. A notebook is a named collection of notes. Each note belongs to exactly one notebook. A stack is a named collection of notebooks. Each notebook can belong to exactly one stack. Tags are labels that can apply to notes. A note can have an arbitrary number of tags, and a tag can be applied to an arbitrary number of notes. Funny how we take concepts from the commonplace physical world (Notebooks of notes? Stacks of notebooks?) and try to make them something else when they are used in the less tangible world of computers, to the point of demanding that the new meanings are actually more "intuitive" than the familiar old meanings. This fact of modern-day computing UX didn't just spring up out of the ground; people had to learn how to use arbitrarily nested structures (folders, directories, what-have-yous), as well as many other computer idioms. And people can learn the above architecture; in fact, it's not too dissimilar from the ones used in other well-known, widely-used products -- how about GMail for a start? BTW, I am not familiar with how ""Tags" so broadly apply to different functionality in different applications and websites" -- tags are almost exactly analogous to GMail "labels", Outlook "categories", and even the old fashioned concept of "keywords". It's even not far from categorizing file types via their file extension (e.g. ".cpp", ".txt", ".mp3", etc.). Tags are great because you can categorize across any organization hierarchy, which is incredibly useful in this age of large-scale collections of disparate data. If this sort of facility isn't a part of the normal user experience, it should be. One thing: If Evernote wanted arbitrarily-nestable notebooks, then why did they introduce a new separate concept "Stack"? Why not have Notebooks behave like computer directories? The answer is, I think, that at the time, they didn't want that behavior. But now that they have stacks and notebooks, what would be the best way forward? Can a stack contain another stack? Can a notebook contain a stack? Can a notebook contain another notebook? What's most intuitive now that you already have a more complicated conceptual vocabulary?

As long as you don't need Premium Evernote services, that's fine -- it's part of the Evernote deal, after all. But, as GrumpyMonkey points out, there already is an Evernote client for Linux, it's just not been developed by Evernote. If you want to be a true Linux supporter, great: support baumgarr.

Great. I'll put you down for $100,000 each. Seriously, this topic has been discussed in the forum since, well, forever. Here's a lengthy thread on the issue, including posts by Evernote employees (you can find it pretty easily using the forum search): http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/22658-request-evernote-for-linux/