jefito

@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/

gazumped is essentially correct. You can also do the same thing using a saved search that specifies only a notebook scope modifier, e.g., "notebook:MyNotebook". This is what clicking on a notebook in the notebook list does behind the scenes. If it were possible to have a clickable link that specified a search query (yes, Evernote folks, this is a feature suggestion, though I'd be the first to say that I don't know the ramifications of implementing this), then you'd have the ability to accomplish what you want, and much more.

Does this have anything to do with Evernote? Evernote for WIndows stores its content in a database, rather than individual files, so it's likely not to be too effective for the problem described here.

One note: what you quoted from me ("Evernote tags == Outlook Categories == GMail Labels") describes Outlook's categories, not its folder system a wholly separate mechanism. More on this follows. Maybe there's some terminology confusion going on here. When I speak of folder systems, I am describing a storage mechanism. Folders typically tend to present a system whereby you store an object in exactly one place (and yes, I understand that some folder systems have ways of making it appear that an object can appear in more than one folder, via links or what not). Whereas tags (or labels or categories or keywords) are a description mechanism; they present a way of describing an object. In folder systems, there is typically exactly one place where you store an object, whereas you can typically apply multiple labels to a single object. To find an object in a folder system, you need to know where it is in the tree (though a lot of folder systems have ways of finding objects by describing their content, e.g. Searchlight, Windows desktop search, etc.). To find an object in a tagged system, you need to know how it's tagged (in Evernote and other systems, you can also search by describing their content as well). Not all hierarchically presented systems are folder systems; meanwhile not all folder systems present arbitrarily nestable hierarchies. So: Outlook has categories, and it has folders. Outlook's categories are not folder systems; they actually behave a lot like Evernote tags; they do not operate like a folder on your hard drive. GMail has labels (I think that I erred in claiming that they also have a folder system; I went back and took a closer look). GMail's labels behave a lot like Evernote tags. When I say a lot, I mean this: if you click on a label in the left-hand column, you get emails with that label, and not emails with its sublabels (unless an email is explicitly also labelled with that sublabel). This is almost exactly like Evernote's UI behavior. Evernote's notebooks are like folders. Each note goes into exactly one notebook. I don't know the problem that you are trying to solve. If you are trying to implement a permissions scheme (e.g., Pat has access to notebooks A and B but not C, while Chris has access to A and C but not , I can see that that wouldn't work; it's just not designed for that and it wouldn't scale over a large number of users. Other problems might be more tractable.

Here are some pretty well understood facts: Notebooks are not the same as tags: A note belongs to exactly one notebook; a note can have multiple tags. Evernote tags == Outlook Categories == GMail Labels. However Outlook's Categories and GMail's Labels are not folder systems. Both Outlook and GMail have separate folder systems, so you can mix'n'match, just like with Evernote (though Evernote's notebooks have the also-well-known properties of being one level deep, albeit organizable in stacks). Tags, Labels and Categories all function like adjectives. Folders are more familiar, it's true, but not necessarily simpler, particularly when you try to scale them to larger systems of disparate items. My old example of classifying a red ball is a case in point; do I put it in the 'Red' folder or the 'Spherical' folder or the 'Toy' folder? It's not something that has a single easy answer, whereas it's pretty simple to describe it using tags. And tags are also quite familiar, if you understand them as simple adjectives or labels. I'd guess that most people learn adjectives before they learn strict hierarchies. The sharing bit is not as familiar to me, but as I understand it, a person who has a notebook shared to them can use existing tags in the sharer to apply to a note in the folder. As far as I can tell, that would make those tags 'shared', in some sense. They don't share in the same way as folders do; they just come along for the ride. I would gladly be corrected in this case if I'm wrong, though -- I don't use notebook sharing to any serious extent. That might have been a little ambiguous: the 'you' merely refers to the general Evernote user. It's been my experience in dealing with Evernote users of all stripes, some have difficulty conceptualizing tags, some just will not use them, for reasons of their own. First thing: Evernote doesn't typically reveal their plans in advance of release, save for beta clients. There are no secret tricks, no super-premier levels, only 250 notebooks, and we can only deal with Evernote as it is, not as we wish it would be. Second, nobody's really saying that you're using Evernote incorrectly; there's a limitation that you've bumped up against. It's not clear to me whether mixing in tags would help you alleviate the problem, or not (I reiterate that I am not a sharing expert). I only know what you yourself said: that you and your team preferred notebooks over tags. If they won't help you solve your problem and you really, really, really need 250 notebooks, then there really is no other conclusion at this time: Evernote is not the product for you. That's not the same thing as saying that you're using it incorrectly, but you are attempting to use it in excess of its limitations, which you now know.

@rgp: While tagging is indeed an important part of the Evernote organizational toolset (I couldn't/wouldn't use Evernote without them), notebooks (there are no folders in Evernote) are also, as noted earlier in the thread. Good use of Evernote requires a user to find a balance. If you cannot or will not use tags, and you need more notebooks than Evernote allows, then unfortunately it may not be the product for you, at least at this time.

Ahem. Favorites Bar in the Windows client.

Well, yes, a developer can always play the game of: "Evernote has 40 million or more customers, so if I can sell a product that captures 1% of them, then that's like 400K. WooHoo!! Porsche-ville, here I come!!" (this is of course the same line of reasoning that launched 1,000 *****, ahem, flatulence apps in the Apple store, well, for awhile anyways). Anyhow, the sort of needing to fumble with note links by hand that you describe seems the antithesis of what Evernote is about, which is capturing -- and categorizing -- lots of stuff you're interested in, simply and easily (that plus X-Marks munged up my bookmarks enough times that I have a hard time trusting them anymore). Frankly, there are no third-party add-ons for Evernote that I use at all these days -- plain old Evernote works pretty well for me, straight up. But then again, I'm not in dire need of even more nested folder structures in my life, however visual they may be. Nevertheless, that's an interesting tip, and I hope that some other folks find it useful. BTW, I think that the metaphor you're reaching for is "800 pound gorilla". A 100 pound gorilla would be pretty puny (http://en.wikipedia....characteristics).

The clip is particularly meaningful to me, as I spent a significant part of my professional career writing software for computer mapping, including different projections. In fact, I spent a fair amount of time last year working on fixing problems with map rotations of raster imagery.

I have no idea where the center of the surface of a sphere is. I have some ideas about where I think the political/economic "center" of the world is, especially if we consider the accumulation of capital. Oh dear, GM... time for a bit of education (courtesy of The West Wing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM

Let C be the set of Evernote customers Let F the set of requested Evernote features Given: f1 and f2 are members of F Let c1 and c2 be sets of members of C such that each member of c1 really really seriously needs f1 and each member of c2 really really seriously needs f2. Is it in general possible to say that f1 is more important than f2? If it is possible (and I don't believe it is) then that's just a baseline on prioritization. Even so, there's the question of whether feature popularity has much pull relative to Evernote's own vision for what they are trying to accomplish (I think there's some, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of popularity counter, i.e., +1's don't really seem to matter all that much). Beyond that is p(f), the price of implementing feature f. If it's high, then that would probably tend to lower f's priority. What other ways are there? Are there any that are more popular or widely used?

"Wast" is a word -- archaic, but a word nonetheless. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wast It is true that MS Word makes better suggestions, according to my extensive research.

Shows red squiggles in Chrome/Win 7. Classic.

There is no way to do this in any Evernote client except, I think, one of the iOS clients. And the third-party Linux client, as well.

Understood. Sorry that you had a bad experience, but good luck anyways.

This is a user forum, and discussion is up to the users to direct -- so participate, or not, as you choose. But just so you know: Evernote staffers do read everything posted in these forums, as best I can tell. They sometimes comment, but not always. It's clear that they know about the desire for adding arbitrary notebook nesting, semantic tag trees, and the like, and have thought about it, but haven't done it yet, if they ever will.

Who are these users speaking on behalf of Evernote?

I knew it!