Jump to content
nomm

Notebooks' split by people you shared your notebooks with?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Are you perhaps working on a functionality allowing notebooks' split by people you shared your notebooks with? That would be great and would bring more clarity... I need to check carefully who also owns a notebook before posting anything... It's sort of waste of time, is it not?

 

BR

Share this post


Link to post

Can you expand on the above use case please? This is a feature suggestion, right? Did you mean to start a new thread... or was this an attempt to respond to another post?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes this is a feature suggestion. Could you please relocate it if necessary? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

It's ok to post feature requests right here. Only thing is I cannot figure out what you're requesting. Would you mind rephrasing?

Share this post


Link to post

Sure. I would like to be able to filter my notebooks by owners / co-owners. The left hand side menu would look like this:

 

Me:

> Notebook 1

> Notebook 2

> Notebook 3

Me and Jimmy:

> Notebook 4

> Notebook 5

Me and Kate and David:

> Notebook 6

> Notebook 7

> Notebook 8

 

Therefore I would know who also owns a notebook at a first glance.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a decent and valid feature request. It'd be a nice option. Evernote employees should see this feature request right here. They may take it into account.

Share this post


Link to post

For the time being, you can implement this yourself using stacks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yep I think this can be achieved with stacks.

 

I think the ability to share stacks will make this feature stronger. As will better Work Chat capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't need the ability to share stacks. I share between notebooks two accounts that live in different stack arrangements on their local accounts, and I organize them differently in the shared accounts. If by "sharing stacks", you mean that you would not be able to move notebooks shared to you into different stacks, then I would definitely not want that. Alternatively, if by "sharing stacks", you just mean that that's a shortcut for sharing all of the notebooks in a stack, and having done so, you receive them in a stack, but can move them freely, then that's fine. The other question is of course what the behavior is when you have shared a stack, and then the stack owner removes one of the shared notebooks from that stack.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't need the ability to share stacks. I share between notebooks two accounts that live in different stack arrangements on their local accounts, and I organize them differently in the shared accounts. If by "sharing stacks", you mean that you would not be able to move notebooks shared to you into different stacks, then I would definitely not want that. Alternatively, if by "sharing stacks", you just mean that that's a shortcut for sharing all of the notebooks in a stack, and having done so, you receive them in a stack, but can move them freely, then that's fine. The other question is of course what the behavior is when you have shared a stack, and then the stack owner removes one of the shared notebooks from that stack.

 

Yes the second part... Simply ability to share a stack... Anything in that stack... Is shared... With ability to move notebooks freely from Stack owner...

 

The behaviour of removing a notebook from a stack... I would imagine would be the same as un-sharing a notebook... Unless it went into a different shared stack... To be clear.. A prompt could come up saying that notebook will no longer be shared....

Share this post


Link to post

The behaviour of removing a notebook from a stack... I would imagine would be the same as un-sharing a notebook... Unless it went into a different shared stack... To be clear.. A prompt could come up saying that notebook will no longer be shared....

See, this is exactly the behavior that I wouldn't want. 

 

BTW, any but the simplest form of stack sharing would require some re-architecting of the Evernote data structure. Last I checked, stacks are nothing but a name field in a notebook. Evernote collects up the notebooks that have a particular stack name, and that's a stack. In other word, stacks don't "know" what notebooks are in the stack; instead, notebooks "know" what stack they belong to. So there's no locus of data attached to a stack, such as would indicate "I am shared with this set of notebooks" that the above scenario would seem to need. Only notebooks know that they're shared.

 

I'm not saying that Evernote couldn't implement such a change, mind...

Share this post


Link to post

 

The behaviour of removing a notebook from a stack... I would imagine would be the same as un-sharing a notebook... Unless it went into a different shared stack... To be clear.. A prompt could come up saying that notebook will no longer be shared....

See, this is exactly the behavior that I wouldn't want. 

 

BTW, any but the simplest form of stack sharing would require some re-architecting of the Evernote data structure. Last I checked, stacks are nothing but a name field in a notebook. Evernote collects up the notebooks that have a particular stack name, and that's a stack. In other word, stacks don't "know" what notebooks are in the stack; instead, notebooks "know" what stack they belong to. So there's no locus of data attached to a stack, such as would indicate "I am shared with this set of notebooks" that the above scenario would seem to need. Only notebooks know that they're shared.

 

I'm not saying that Evernote couldn't implement such a change, mind...

 

 

 

Well I can see the problem you state.... But you can still share notebooks individually... 

 

So same would apply with stacks I guess.. If you shared a single notebook of a shared stack (with another group) with an extra 3rd party... He would not have acess to the entire stack... Logically you can change share settings independantly with stack and independently with notebooks also... 

 

If a notebook is in a stack... it shares the stacks sharing characteristics... if you share a notebook independently... It keeps its independent sharing characteristics once removed from stack... But also takes on the characteristics of the stack it is in... (shared or free)...

 

I can see how this could be confusing...  But essentially In notebook section you can see stacks as a "block" just like you see notebooks as a block... Where you can see who is shared in each...

 

 

I think the first notebook view page can be confusing... I think the second notebook view option is much better... 

 

I can see how this can potentially be confusing... But it does not really need to be if they do it right.

 

It's essentially the same sharing mechanism used in DropBox.

 

Now I get that stack's 'dont exist' theoretically... But the fact is they do... Its a heading... Even though Notes always belong to a notebook... 

 

Stack's are essentially a hierarchal structure.

Share this post


Link to post

Now I get that stack's 'dont exist' theoretically... But the fact is they do... Its a heading... Even though Notes always belong to a notebook... 

 

Stack's are essentially a hierarchal structure.

Reference: The Evernote API declarations

 

Stacks exist: they exist as a name field in a notebook. Each notebook has a stack name, which may be empty or not: empty means that the notebook is not in a stack, while non-empty means that it's in a stack of that name.

 

However, stacks don't appear to have any data of their own. They don't have any list of notebooks in the stack. They don't have any notion of sharing or anything at all. In the API doc, there is a Notebook object, a Note object, and so on. There is no Stack object.

 

Since a stack has no data, it is not a structure at all, much less a hierarchical structure. A non-empty stack name in a notebook causes a notebook to be organized visually as a branch with other notebooks that have the same stack name, but it's a stretch to call a stack a hierarchical structure. You could as well organize on the 'restrictions' field of a Notebook, and it's unlikely that you'd call that a hierarchical structure.

 

So in the range of things that Evernote could do with respect to sharing stacks, they could, easily have an operation that shares all of the notebooks in a stack with a particular person, and they could do it without changing the Evernote architecture. Beyond that, they'd need to modify the plumbing, and that's a pretty big deal, as you need to change all clients who depend on that architecture, and ensure that they play well with clients that don't understand the new architecture (there are people who stick with an older version of Evernote on purpose).

 

I'd bet that a significant number of people would be satisfied with the easy solution.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Reference: The Evernote API declarations

 

Stacks exist: they exist as a name field in a notebook. Each notebook has a stack name, which may be empty or not: empty means that the notebook is not in a stack, while non-empty means that it's in a stack of that name.

 

However, stacks don't appear to have any data of their own. They don't have any list of notebooks in the stack. They don't have any notion of sharing or anything at all. In the API doc, there is a Notebook object, a Note object, and so on. There is no Stack object.

 

Since a stack has no data, it is not a structure at all, much less a hierarchical structure. A non-empty stack name in a notebook causes a notebook to be organized visually as a branch with other notebooks that have the same stack name, but it's a stretch to call a stack a hierarchical structure. You could as well organize on the 'restrictions' field of a Notebook, and it's unlikely that you'd call that a hierarchical structure.

 

So in the range of things that Evernote could do with respect to sharing stacks, they could, easily have an operation that shares all of the notebooks in a stack with a particular person, and they could do it without changing the Evernote architecture. Beyond that, they'd need to modify the plumbing, and that's a pretty big deal, as you need to change all clients who depend on that architecture, and ensure that they play well with clients that don't understand the new architecture (there are people who stick with an older version of Evernote on purpose).

 

I'd bet that a significant number of people would be satisfied with the easy solution.

 

 

In Computer terms and programing.... You are probably 100% right and I would most likely be completely wrong... But I am an end user... And I couldn't care less about what the programming represents.  With Regards to Evernote's current thinking and philosophy.. You would also be right...

 

But I think Evernote has it slightly wrong... This is why...

 

I want to know what its use to me is as an end user.

 

Essentially we are discussing "philosophical" concepts so to speak...

 

Fine all it is, is a heading... I cant even click on the stack heading and create a search specific only to that stack... (Which is also disappointing)

 

The fact it is some sort of heading that groups together notebooks. Suffice to say it exists... Even if it is just a heading...

 

But this is so limited... Why cant I select a stack... And hone in a search to include only the notebooks in that stack? Why cant I share a stack? Why are stacks Just a little heading? 

I get evernote is built on simplicity... But Stacks are seriously underpowered... 

 

I realise one thing while writting this comment.... Stacks Achieve absolutely nothing.... Other than sorting out notebooks in some sort of Group just for viewing in the notebook section...

 

They represent all Canadians for example (My stack)... French and English (My two notebooks) However I cant but feel... their is a distinct heirarchy in being categorised as canadian English.. or Candian french as opposed to just Engish or French... 

 

Esentially stacks use heirarchy to denote that those notebooks belong to another group... And that French Canadians, simply are not French citizens or from France.....  Or anything else for that matter... They are ALL CANADIANS... Anything else would just be out of place in that Stack.

 

In fact ill go so far as to say, apart from a bit of Heirarchy or ownership... Stacks achieve nothing... So Evernote's whole philosophy of having no heirarchy whatsoever is flawed...

If they are going to have a '1step' categorisation... They may as well let me do something with it.... Other than having some organisational view in Notebooks tab..

Share this post


Link to post

In Computer terms and programing.... You are probably 100% right and I would most likely be completely wrong... But I am an end user... And I couldn't care less about what the programming represents.  With Regards to Evernote's current thinking and philosophy.. You would also be right...

 

But I think Evernote has it slightly wrong... This is why...

 

I want to know what its use to me is as an end user.

Sure, I understand the end user viewpoint. I just wanted to present the other side of things. There's a cost to development, and software makers weigh those costs vs expected utility, and they get to make the final decision as to whether they'll implement a feature or not. And the users get the final decision as to whether to use the software or not.

 

Fine all it is, is a heading... I cant even click on the stack heading and create a search specific only to that stack... (Which is also disappointing)

 

The fact it is some sort of heading that groups together notebooks. Suffice to say it exists... Even if it is just a heading...

 

But this is so limited... Why cant I select a stack... And hone in a search to include only the notebooks in that stack? Why cant I share a stack? Why are stacks Just a little heading? 

I get evernote is built on simplicity... But Stacks are seriously underpowered... 

I realise one thing while writting this comment.... Stacks Achieve absolutely nothing.... Other than sorting out notebooks in some sort of Group just for viewing in the notebook section...

In the Windows client you sure can use stacks for filtering, by selecting them in the notebook tree. You can also use "stack:<stack name>" in a search.

Stacks are intentionally simple. They were explicitly introduced as an aid to organizing 100 notebooks (the max at the time; now it's 250). Their implementation suggests that -- they were introduced without needing to make big architectural changes to Evernote's implementation. Obviously they could have been more powerful, but the Evernote ethos is, I think, to try to make things simpler.

 

In fact ill go so far as to say, apart from a bit of Heirarchy or ownership... Stacks achieve nothing... So Evernote's whole philosophy of having no heirarchy whatsoever is flawed...

If they are going to have a '1step' categorisation... They may as well let me do something with it.... Other than having some organisational view in Notebooks tab..

Again, stacks are a simple organizational feature, by design. And Evernote's lack of generalized hierarchical abilities is a flaw if your use case demands it. Mine doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post

 

In the Windows client you sure can use stacks for filtering, by selecting them in the notebook tree. You can also use "stack:<stack name>" in a search.

Stacks are intentionally simple. They were explicitly introduced as an aid to organizing 100 notebooks (the max at the time; now it's 250). Their implementation suggests that -- they were introduced without needing to make big architectural changes to Evernote's implementation. Obviously they could have been more powerful, but the Evernote ethos is, I think, to try to make things simpler.

 

 

 

 

I use a Mac predominantly... I don't understand why Windows can do stack specific searches, and I can not.... That does not make sense to me.... 

I also believe in simplicity.. I think that is very important. But I don't get how windows and MAC behaving differently is simple... Sometimes I may use a windows machine... Why should Windows behave differently to MAC... When I essentially have the exact same notes on each PC with the same program.. Its quite a big difference in how the program is used in my opinion...

 

Also I dont think the issue with what I am asking is development costs... This is a decision in direction of the program with 100 million users... Economies of Scale, and a better user experience in the perpetual long term is what it is about... People often cite costs as a deterrent to change... I think people dont seem to realise how large Evernote really is, and the resources they have available to them.. Making the program better for all is always justifiable of costs, when you are talking about 100 million people...

 

The real issue is to keep it simple, and not overly confuse people... ie. make evernote more systematically efficient for all... (Improve users experience without, decreasing anybody else's experience) As it stands... Consistency is what makes simplicity... And on this issue, I dont see consistency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love to get some inside information as to how many of the 100,000,000 Evernote users are actually using Work Chat. That must represent an astronomical cost to get off the ground. I hope it works out for Evernote. If it doesn't work out, I fear we all lose at the end of the day. As far as I know, we didn't have people clamoring for a chat facility in Evernote. I think there were probably more requests for a dark-theme background and other less expensive feature requests to implement. For all I know it may have been cheaper to implement shared stacks. But then again, that's way different to the new vision of one consolidated workspace.

Share this post


Link to post

Also I dont think the issue with what I am asking is development costs... This is a decision in direction of the program with 100 million users... Economies of Scale, and a better user experience in the perpetual long term is what it is about... People often cite costs as a deterrent to change... I think people dont seem to realise how large Evernote really is, and the resources they have available to them.. Making the program better for all is always justifiable of costs, when you are talking about 100 million people...

Uh, yes, it often is about development costs. And sometimes about the design principles behind the product (whether you agree with them or not). Or maybe they prefer to spend their development resources on other stuff. Trust me on this -- I do this for a living. Stack that up against the probability that most Evernote users don't really care about stack sharing at all (I'd guess that it's higher rather than lower).

The real issue is to keep it simple, and not overly confuse people... ie. make evernote more systematically efficient for all... (Improve users experience without, decreasing anybody else's experience) As it stands... Consistency is what makes simplicity... And on this issue, I dont see consistency.

It is simple. You share notebooks and notes only. You don't share stacks or accounts or collections based on saved searches (e.g. by tag), so it's not consistent in that respect. But not all consistency is worth it, because *simplistic* consistency (consistency for consistency's sake) can make things a lot more confusing for users.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love to get some inside information as to how many of the 100,000,000 Evernote users are actually using Work Chat. That must represent an astronomical cost to get off the ground. I hope it works out for Evernote. If it doesn't work out, I fear we all lose at the end of the day. As far as I know, we didn't have people clamoring for a chat facility in Evernote. I think there were probably more requests for a dark-theme background and other less expensive feature requests to implement. For all I know it may have been cheaper to implement shared stacks. But then again, that's way different to the new vision of one consolidated workspace.

 

I think the launch of workchat is not just about the current users... Its about growth...

 

A well functioning Workchat can help Evernote grow significantly... Especially in their business offering... Its a vital feature...

 

They want to push collaboration as much as possible... 

Collaboration means exponential growth...

 

If people have a tool that helps them collaborate, it means that they will push other users to use the product...

 

I have pushed numerous people to use Evernote... Not because I cared if they used it or not... But because I could use it as a collaboration tool with my peers...

I often suggest Evernote as a great product... However when I need to work closely with people... I will go as far as actually help them through installation, and explaining how it works...

 

This is a huge growth factor... Free mouth to mouth advertising... And showing other people value in Evernote... To a degree that I would not otherwise go to... However due to the collaborative capabilities... I find myself pushing Evernote often...

Share this post


Link to post

I hate to admit it @lykoz... I myself don't quite care for sharing stacks. I did at one time, but I found a way around it. But I do think that if enough people wanted it, the costs to implement it would most likely pale in significance to what Evernote was forked out for their recent overhauls.

Share this post


Link to post

Jefito... we were specifically talking about inconsistency in the ability to search through stacks in windows and not MAC... 

 

We escaped back to the initial topic... But that specific post was referring to searching based on stacks.

 

That is inconsistent... And not simple... 

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think the launch of workchat is not just about the current users... Its about growth...

 

 

You have a point there...

Share this post


Link to post

I hate to admit it @lykoz... I myself don't quite care for sharing stacks. I did at one time, but I found a way around it. But I do think that if enough people wanted it, the costs to implement it would most likely pale in significance to what Evernote was forked out for their recent overhauls.

 

It's not a feature I am dying for... I would argue harder for bussiness users needing it heavily... As I saw in other threads.... However since I am not a bussiness Evernote User I dont want to assume what a program I dont pay for should have... Suffice to say.. I saw some strong requests from bussiness users for this... And their reasons were very strong in time saving for them...

 

i.e. Imagine you have a bussiness acount... With many employees... And every time a new employee comes in you have to share each notebook individually with each of them with no shared organisational structure... Just loose notebooks everywhere....

 

In totality... I support the idea 100%.... But I am personally managing just fine without it at the moment..

 

But just to be clear with anyone reading (Evernote developers etc.)... If it did happen.. In my private capacity and my singular and humble opinion and feedback... I would be very happy with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...