Web Research vs. UltraRecall Review

First, a little background…
I have tried most of the products discussed on this forum… and have focused on 2 main software products.

OmeaPro… showed great promise but was dropped by the developer

UltraRecall… Not bad, but could be better

But now I’m really liking Web Research from Macropool for the following reasons:

#1. I’m using the “network” add-in on my stand alone machine. By doing this, it adds a key piece of functionality missing in the “stand-alone” version… indexing of word, excel, powerpoint and PDF documents. With this add-in, all docs added to WR are indexed. I wonder why the developer doesn’t add this feature to stand-alone product???
NOTE… web pages are automatically indexed as you add them to WR.

#2. WR seems to capture web pages better and faster than UR. Plus, unlike UR, you can select where to store the web page, add comments & categories, before you save the web page… a very nice feature.

#3. You can add notes to any item stored in WR.

#4. You can add notes as individual items into WR.

#5. You can add categories to any item in WR. Unlike UR, you can assign multiple categories to an item.

#6. The only “big thing” UR has that WR doesn’t have is the ability to create custom meta forms. This is not a deal breaker for me, but would be nice.

#7. WR seems quicker and more stable than the current version of UR.

#8. The latest version of WR adds a nice feature which allows you to add items directly from your scanner. (fyi… WR adds scanned documents as a jpg… not pdf)

#9. WR has an add-on which allows you to send outlook items to WR.

Overall, I’m very pleased with WR! I would say that UR is a little more powerful (in terms of customization) but WR is cleaner, faster and easier to use.

I would highly recommend others to download the free version…WITH the network add-on to add the ability to index documents.

NOTE-I do not work for Macropool :-)

-jj

I have also been looking at WebResearch, although I've been quite happy with MyBase. I haven't actually tried WR yet, but it appears to

1. Possibly have limited rtf editing capabilities
2. The ability to save a Web page AND those pages that have links in the original page.

-c

Cassius/JJ,

I've been using Web Research for some years. It used to be called ContentSaver, and there are numerous posts here and on the Zoot forum abut it. It also has the ability to generate hyperlinks to its content. These can be inserted in other programs - very useful for working with Zoot. See
http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/1860 Unfortunately its name makes it hard to search for efficiently, here or with google.

The network extension is a pretty hefty $45 or so on top of the base price of $45 for WR itself. I was tempted to buy the add-on but was deterred by the price and technical requirements:
- some form of Microsoft SQL Server 2000 or 2005 (there is a free version):
- Operating system: Windows 2000 Server, Windows Server 2003, or NT 4.0 Server (but small groups and singletons can use XP, apparently).

It looked like a bit of a resource hog,so I haven't tried it yet. How does it work out, JJ?

Although the indexing function JJ mentions is very useful, as he comments it ought to be on the base product. Also there is the usual vexed question - which still applies AFAIK to Surfulater - that external engines currently cannot index the contents of most software of this type (Firefox's Scrapbook and NetSnippets are two exceptions). This is essential where data is being held over a range of software plus on the windows filing system itself. Of course there are workarounds; one can export the contents of WR in a form that can be indexed by a desktop search engine. And dtSearch, for example, can actually index and search WR's html documents because these have clear delimiters that can be picked up by DTS. Not so for other file-types, however.

That all said, I like WR a lot, although I am watching Surfulater closely. I don't use WR for composing stuff, but it has an html editor. It also has a useful "categories" feature, as JJ pointed out. My main interest is in using it in tandem with Zoot as a repository for material Zoot can't (yet!) handle. WR's hyperlinking feature is essential for this.

Derek

#5. You can add categories to any item in WR. Unlike UR, you can assign multiple
categories to an item.

what do you mean by this?

#6. The only “big thing” UR has that WR doesn’t have is the
ability to create custom meta forms. This is not a deal breaker for me, but would be
nice.

I dont know WR, and there is no list of features so here it comes.
Does it have templates?
Does it have metadata?
Does it have items that act as searches?
Does it have reminders?
...

#7. WR seems quicker and more stable than the current version of UR.

#8. The
latest version of WR adds a nice feature which allows you to add items directly from
your scanner. (fyi… WR adds scanned documents as a jpg… not pdf)

#9. WR has an add-on
which allows you to send outlook items to WR.

Overall, I’m very pleased with WR! I
would say that UR is a little more powerful (in terms of customization) but WR is
cleaner, faster and easier to use.

I would highly recommend others to download the
free version…WITH the network add-on to add the ability to index documents.

NOTE-I
do not work for Macropool :-)

-jj

Reading this biased review, I'm not that sure. You start by saying "Web Research vs. UltraRecall Review" and then list basic features of WR that almost any PIM has.

JJ wrote:

do not work for Macropool :-)

forgot to say, I dont work for Kinook ...

JJ wrote:

Web Research vs. UltraRecall Review [snip]

I don't know WR at all but am familiar with & use UltraRecall on a daily basis. IMO your review of UR is not accurate nor complete.

A single but important example is that you imply that UR is not really stable. Like I said I use it every day & have for some time now & have not had a crash in months & months. I think Quant covered some other points of possible contention.

UltraRecall has its quirks for sure but I don't think you represented it's weaknesses or its strengths in a factual manner.

I will, however, take a look @ Web Research because I'm always interested in new products in this category.

Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA

Quant,

Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture program. As you suggest, it is not a PIM - and, indeed, not designed to be. So - no templates, no reminders, etc. It does have "search templates". To quote the Help file: "Web Research can save any search criteria that you entered in Advanced Find as a Search Template. Later, you can repeat the search based on the search criteria, or you can modify it."

WR can add edit web pages, add comments, highlight, etc. htm files, add follow-up reminders - but these features work somewhat more straightforwardly when using IE than Firefox. I like the WR gui, which reminds me in some ways of Zoot's 3 panes.

I also like UR, which I have registered in case Zoot32 does not happen. If Zoot32 DOES happen, then I'd expect that it would ultimately give UR a good run for its money and make web capture "helper programs" as a group a less attractive buy. That's just my view - but the latter are busy adding Zoot and UR-like features, so presumably they think so too. (IMHO, of course).

Anyone interested in WR can d/l a trial. Macropool is a European (German, specifically) software company, so it has limited visibility over here - here, for me, being Kansas :-). This is the URL: http://www.macropool.com/en/products/index.html

There are a lot of pros and cons in relation to Surfulater, vs WR, Onflio and Net Snippets. For some people (e.g., running Firefox), a combination of Scrapbook and Zotero might be better.

Derek

I feel rather uncomfortable with posters being flamed for posting apparently biassed or incomplete reviews. Every user has different needs and desires leading us to use packages in different ways; and every software package has its good and bad points. Judging by previous posts, jj is a long time fan of Web Research, just as quant and Jan are of UR.

Personally, like jj, I found UltraRecall pro 3 to be sluggish and unstable, and it crashed on me regularly (I don't know if this has been resolved by the most recent releases). I would prefer to think we were trying to do different things with the software, or our computer setups are different, rather than that any attempt is being made to mislead.

Graham

Derek Cornish wrote:

Quant,

Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture program.

I see, so don't you think it's not a best idea to compare to UR? I personally think UR is much more than just a web capture soft. I started reading your review excited that I might see some other program that is comparable in feature set with UR, but nothing like that followed. What about comparing WR with Surfulater or another similar soft?

quant

Well said, Graham. Let's keep this forum a friendly place.

Ike

Graham Rhind wrote:

I feel rather uncomfortable with posters being flamed for posting apparently
biassed or incomplete reviews. Every user has different needs and desires leading us
to use packages in different ways; and every software package has its good and bad
points. Judging by previous posts, jj is a long time fan of Web Research, just as quant
and Jan are of UR.

For anyone interested in perfect web capture:

I've collected what must be a couple of gb of data since I started using Scrapbook a couple of years ago. I take it for granted that every web page copy, copied in never more than a couple of seconds, will be absolutely faithful to the original.

And Zotero is amazing. One click saving of full citations from your database searches - Amazon, JSTOR, Project Muse etc.

Both add up to the perfect combo for academics/researchers IMHO.

Ike

Derek Cornish wrote:

For some people (e.g.,
running Firefox), a combination of Scrapbook and Zotero might be better.

Derek

quant wrote:

I see, so don't you think it's not a best idea to compare to
UR? I personally think UR is much more than just a web capture soft. I started reading
your review excited that I might see some other program that is comparable in feature
set with UR, but nothing like that followed. What about comparing WR with Surfulater
or another similar soft?

Fair point. It set me thinking, and in the 27 years that I've been using computers, I don't think I've ever come across any application, apart from the simplest "one trick" ones, that has the same feature set as any other product. I set out looking for software that fulfilled all of my data management needs, but came to realize that there are programs which have features that work better than similar features in other programs. So I think it is quite reasonable to compare subsets of features in a complex application as UR to similar features in other programs (though I'm not clear that this is what jj was doing). I only use UR now as a database, and if I were to review just its database abilities (forms, "metadata" etc.), I would be full of praise for it. It is other features of it which I find don't work for me, which mean I still use 7 or 8 applications for personal information management rather than the Utopian single one.

As to whether Web Research is more than just a web clipper - I haven't used the program, but if it has a scanning plug-in, it would seem to push it more to the document management pigeon hole to me, which UR also professes to do (amongst other features, of course, which Web Research doesn't have). And, I suppose if it manages a person's personal information, to that person it's a PIM.

But Derek, I have to ask: why does being in Kansas limit the visibility of European products to you? :-)

Graham

quant wrote:

>#5. You can add categories to any item in WR. Unlike UR, you can assign multiple

>categories to an item.

what do you mean by this?

>
>#6. The only “big thing” UR
has that WR doesn’t have is the
>ability to create custom meta forms. This is not a deal
breaker for me, but would be
>nice.

I dont know WR, and there is no list of features so
here it comes.
Does it have templates?
Does it have metadata?
Does it have items
that act as searches?
Does it have reminders?
...

>
>#7. WR seems quicker and more
stable than the current version of UR.
>
>#8. The
>latest version of WR adds a nice
feature which allows you to add items directly from
>your scanner. (fyi… WR adds
scanned documents as a jpg… not pdf)
>
>#9. WR has an add-on
>which allows you to send
outlook items to WR.
>
>Overall, I’m very pleased with WR! I
>would say that UR is a
little more powerful (in terms of customization) but WR is
>cleaner, faster and
easier to use.
>
>I would highly recommend others to download the
>free
version…WITH the network add-on to add the ability to index documents.
>
>NOTE-I

>do not work for Macropool :-)
>
>-jj

Reading this biased review, I'm not that
sure. You start by saying "Web Research vs. UltraRecall Review" and then list basic
features of WR that almost any PIM has.

Quant,

First let me let me point out that I USE both UR & WR. (and along the way have used just about every other product out there)
Secondly, I assumed from being a forum member for years and following the posts here, most people are familiar with/use UR. So I felt little need to list all the positives with UR and instead focused my "review" on WR since there is little discuss of the product here.... I'm sorry if this approach left you with the feeling of a biased review.

On to your questions:

#5. In UR, you can only have 1 category for an item. In WR you can open a categories window (which lists your categories in a tree structure... each with an open check box). When you select an item in WR, you can check all the appropriate categories that apply to the item. I work around this limitation in UR by creating a folder called categories and link items to the appropriate categories. This works, but not as well as WR solution.

#6. I pointed out that UR is far more powerful in this area and hoped that WR would include this. WR doesn't have templates. But you can add notes.. other "canned" meta data includes "importance", reminders and flags.

#7. I have captured web pages in both UR & WR... WR is faster and more importantly it does a better job. Here is a recent example. I made an online hotel reservation for my vacation. I used UR to capture the details of the reservation. A day before our vacation I opened UR and found that the web page I thought was saved only showed the login screen for the hotel... not my reservation info. (NOTE- I find this problem all too offer in UR) As a test, I created a new reservation and saved the page in both UR & WR. WR saved it perfectly, while UR did not. (Your mileage my vary :-))

Also, WR is far faster at capturing pages than UR. I have tested them side by side.

As one poster pointed out, each person has their own unique needs.... and I was only pointing out that WR works well for me.

I also agree with a comment that WR's roots are in capturing web pages. BUT, with the addition of the network add-in and the ability to index documents.... WR comes closer to UR & in some areas (like capturing web pages) WR is better.

I suggest you download the trial of WR (with the network add-in) and you make your own decision.


-jj

#5. In UR, you
can only have 1 category for an item. In WR you can open a categories window (which lists
your categories in a tree structure... each with an open check box). When you select an
item in WR, you can check all the appropriate categories that apply to the item. I work
around this limitation in UR by creating a folder called categories and link items to
the appropriate categories. This works, but not as well as WR solution.

either that, or you can use user defined keywords (together with saved searches), and you'll get your check-boxes :)

#7. I have captured web pages in both
UR & WR... WR is faster and more importantly it does a better job. Here is a recent
example. I made an online hotel reservation for my vacation. I used UR to capture the
details of the reservation. A day before our vacation I opened UR and found that the web
page I thought was saved only showed the login screen for the hotel... not my
reservation info. (NOTE- I find this problem all too offer in UR) As a test, I created a
new reservation and saved the page in both UR & WR. WR saved it perfectly, while UR did
not. (Your mileage my vary :-))

it's because some pages are actually scripts rather than static websites, that generate the page. Maybe if you are surfing in WR it stores the generated website in the cache. I don't use IE, but there is setting to use IE cache in UR. I personally use Scrapbook in Firefox, cause I can easily get only what I want and remove unnecesary banners or any DOM element, so no problem with secured or generated webs.

Also, WR is far faster at capturing pages than UR. I
have tested them side by side.

well, probably because of all the metadata that has to be updated in the SQL database of UR! Also depends whether you use cached versions to store it in UR.

FYI... WR requires Scrapbook to work with Firefox.

This is the set-up I have.

-jj

Quant,

>Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture program.

I'm not quite sure why you take exception to this rather innocuous statement. I was just suggesting - as I thought you did - that comparing WR with UR is not necessarily the most appropriate way of assessing merits of either. Best to compare WR with others in its own software segment.

Derek

Fair point.

Hmmm...my post was intended to head off what was developing into an acrimonious apples and pears comparison. Back to the drawing-board!

>Anyone interested in WR can d/l a trial. Macropool is a European (German, specifically) software company, so it has limited visibility over here - here, for me, being Kansas :-).

But Derek, I have to ask: why does being in Kansas limit the visibility of European products to you? :-)

Not me personally (being European), and (maybe) not specifically Kansas which just happens to be my location in the U.S. But now I come to think of it, Kansas does have its own unique take on matters European. I think you may have identified a Freudian slip of my pen :-)

Derek

Derek

quant wrote:

>Also, WR is far faster
at capturing pages than UR. I
>have tested them side by side.

well, probably
because of all the metadata that has to be updated in the SQL database of UR! Also
depends whether you use cached versions to store it in UR.

This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how UR works internally, but adding a record containing (for example) a web page shouldn't require any other records, whether they contain metadata or not, to be updated. In my database program of choice (Visual Foxpro) it is as quick to add a record to a database containing 2 million records as to one containing 10 records. I would think that the speed of storing a webpage would be down to the speed of the underlying database system.

I could be wrong, of course....

Graham

This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how UR works internally,
but adding a record containing (for example) a web page shouldn't require any other
records, whether they contain metadata or not, to be updated. In my database program
of choice (Visual Foxpro) it is as quick to add a record to a database containing 2
million records as to one containing 10 records.

I'm not a database specialist, does the speed of insert operation depend on whether the database is kept indexed or not?

Derek Cornish wrote:

Quant,

>>Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture
program.

I'm not quite sure why you take exception to this rather innocuous
statement. I was just suggesting - as I thought you did - that comparing WR with UR is not
necessarily the most appropriate way of assessing merits of either. Best to compare
WR with others in its own software segment.

Derek

Maybe I should have provided a little background....

I was "sold" on UR... but the web capture ability of UR is too slow & cumbersome for me (I capture a lot of web clippings). I hate having to make sure I have the correct UR file opened to have it saved in the correct file... plus you then have to then go to UR, assign the correct categories and then drag the clipping into the appropriate fold. WR is much better in this regard! For example:

*WR allows you to dump the clipping into "New Docs" like UR. BUT you also have the "Save as" option. This allows you selct the folder, categories, add notes, set importance, title... before you save the clipping.... very nice & fast.

*PLUS, WR will allow you to take a screen dump (or area)... something UR does not do.

SO, I switched to a new approach... I used UR for everything except for web clipping. I used "Content Saver" (the old name for WR) for web clipping.

I never liked the 2 product solution. So recently I downloaded the network add-in to WR which indexes all docs you add to WR. The add-in is not a resource pig (although I thought it would be...)

Now I'm trying to get back to a 1 product solution and I'm liking WR with the index functionality.

I agree that WR does have a web clipping focus.... but with the network add-in, I'm hoping that the added functionality will allow me to use just 1 product. (Plus, like UR, WR does have an Outlook add-in)


-jj

quant wrote:

>This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how UR works internally,
>but adding a
record containing (for example) a web page shouldn't require any other
>records,
whether they contain metadata or not, to be updated. In my database program
>of
choice (Visual Foxpro) it is as quick to add a record to a database containing 2

>million records as to one containing 10 records.

I'm not a database specialist,
does the speed of insert operation depend on whether the database is kept indexed or
not?

"Insert" commands shouldn 't physically insert a record (i.e., pushing all the records below it downwards) - that would kill off any use a database may have had as it is excrutiatingly slow. Insert just adds the record to the end of the file. Inserting into an indexed (ordered) file will affect speed because the positioning of the record in the interface needs refreshing.

Graham Rhind wrote:

... Inserting into an indexed (ordered) file will affect speed
because the positioning of the record in the interface needs refreshing.

UR keeps all the keywords indexed, so you answered yourself :)

JJ,

I'd guess a lot of the UR users would claim that its information management abilities extend far beyond those of WR, and approach those of Zoot (this from a Zoot-biased viewpoint, needless to say). This would explain their strong resistance to the idea that WR could be a replacement for UR. But of course it all depends on what one is using UR for. Being a WR user myself, I can see how its developing feature-set might make it an attractive alternative to UR or Zoot as a single-product HQ for some users (though clearly not for others!). When using two decent programs with overlapping features one is constantly alert for the tipping-point at which one's usage might be switched to one or other of them, rather than both.

Not being a heavy UR user I would not want to get into any WR-UR tipping-point discussion, particularly as it depends so much on an individual's usage. But to take a somewhat analogous example, WR certainly does not have the feature-set to replace my use of Zoot at the moment, although I have often wished it did. It is, however, a very useful companion program to Zoot, in the latter's current pre-32 bit state. This is why I stressed the ability of WR to provide hyperlinks to its content that can be pasted into external programs - something the Admiral kindly ensured that Zoot could handle. Currently in WR the hyperlink is only to the saved file, not to its contents (paragraphs, sentences, words, etc). But this is still extremely useful if one wants to use WR as a well-organised repository for webpages, images, and so on, when used in conjunction with Zoot or other similar programs. (Incidentally, I am at something of a loss to understand why this feature is so rarely commented on when discussing WR, especially as it has been praised here in relation to Whizfolders: see http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/1833

But the point I was really trying to make - not very well - in previous posts, was that it would be a pity if the good points of WR as content-capturing software, in comparison with other software in that class, were to get overlooked in the scramble to identify its shortcomings with respect to UR or other more powerful information organisation and management software. Like you, I invite people who have not d/l WR - especially those who have commented on it :-) - to take a look.

Derek

quant wrote:

UR
keeps all the keywords indexed, so you answered yourself :)

I don't recall asking a question. But does this mean that UR scans incoming web pages for occurrences of keywords? That would certainly explain why it is slower than Web Research in jj's test.

There is a difference in the speed that programs capture web pages - I find Surfulator very slow on my machine, for example, where no keywords are involved. After a quick look at Web Research I have to say it is lightning fast. I am still installing the network add on, which will give it the same indexing burden as UR. jj has already tested this and suggests that it is faster, which I can well believe. It also seems to be faster in file importing than UR, but I haven't tried this yet with the network add in.

Derek Cornish wrote:

JJ,

I'd guess a lot of the UR users would claim that its information management
abilities extend far beyond those of WR, and approach those of Zoot (this from a
Zoot-biased viewpoint, needless to say). This would explain their strong
resistance to the idea that WR could be a replacement for UR. But of course it all
depends on what one is using UR for. Being a WR user myself, I can see how its developing
feature-set might make it an attractive alternative to UR or Zoot as a single-product
HQ for some users (though clearly not for others!). When using two decent programs
with overlapping features one is constantly alert for the tipping-point at which
one's usage might be switched to one or other of them, rather than both.

Not being a
heavy UR user I would not want to get into any WR-UR tipping-point discussion,
particularly as it depends so much on an individual's usage. But to take a somewhat
analogous example, WR certainly does not have the feature-set to replace my use of
Zoot at the moment, although I have often wished it did. It is, however, a very useful
companion program to Zoot, in the latter's current pre-32 bit state. This is why I
stressed the ability of WR to provide hyperlinks to its content that can be pasted into
external programs - something the Admiral kindly ensured that Zoot could handle.
Currently in WR the hyperlink is only to the saved file, not to its contents
(paragraphs, sentences, words, etc). But this is still extremely useful if one wants
to use WR as a well-organised repository for webpages, images, and so on, when used in
conjunction with Zoot or other similar programs. (Incidentally, I am at something of
a loss to understand why this feature is so rarely commented on when discussing WR,
especially as it has been praised here in relation to Whizfolders: see
http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/1833

But the point I was
really trying to make - not very well - in previous posts, was that it would be a pity if
the good points of WR as content-capturing software, in comparison with other
software in that class, were to get overlooked in the scramble to identify its
shortcomings with respect to UR or other more powerful information organisation and
management software. Like you, I invite people who have not d/l WR - especially those
who have commented on it :-) - to take a look.

Derek

Derek,

I couldn't have said it better :-)

Have you tried using WR with the network add-in???

PS... I too am looking forward to Zoot32!

-jj