don't recall asking a question. But does this mean that UR scans incoming web pages for
occurrences of keywords?

yes, if you set the html files to be indexed

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.

One thing is for sure, as was already said, each of us has a different priority. So regarding the last few posts that were about whether it's lightning fast or takes few seconds to capture a website, I must say, I don't care. The most important feature for me is availability of metadata, cause in this way I can have everything in one program, rather than several of them. This is crucial, cause once you split your data, it's very hard to create any linkages between data coming from 2 or more softwares.
It's very important for me to link library items with citations, another data some webpage clippings, contacts to colleagues, calendar, ... all in one place ready to process with LIGHTNING fast search (now the speed is relevant) because of metadata and everything being indexed.

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.

Graham, you are right that every user has different needs when it comes to data gathering.

The only thing I have in common w Quant is that I like to keep all my data under one roof. To that end, I've found that most leatherman (http://www.leathermanstore.com/ tool-type programs are stronger in functions A,B,C but maybe not in D or E. The user has to compromise somewhere along the way which is why many of us continue to search for the 'perfect' leatherman-type program &, ergo, the value of a forum like this.

However, I reject the notion that making a comment on another's representation of facts is flaming. IMO, it's simply commenting on a matter of accuracy vs inaccuracy. It's not personal.

As a matter of fact I can't say how UR stacks up with WR in the web capturing department because, like I said, I've never used WR. And I wouldn't compare these two programs anyway because it's like apples vs oranges.

What I would find useful is a good comparison between WR, Net Snippets, Scrapbook & other like programs.

I owe UR no allegiance beyond it's usefulness in my daily life & like you & others, am constantly on the lookout for a better solution. So far I haven't found a better leatherman data tool.

Regards,

Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

However, I reject
the notion that making a comment on another's representation of facts is flaming.
IMO, it's simply commenting on a matter of accuracy vs inaccuracy. It's not personal.

Ditto. As long as the arguments are "substantiated", I don't see any problem, we are just discussing :)
I'm, like others is here, keen to learn about other programs that I might use in the future ...

quant wrote:

Jan Rifkinson wrote:
>However, I reject
>the notion that making a comment on
another's representation of facts is flaming.
>IMO, it's simply commenting on a
matter of accuracy vs inaccuracy. It's not personal.

Ditto. As long as the
arguments are "substantiated", I don't see any problem, we are just discussing
:)
I'm, like others is here, keen to learn about other programs that I might use in the
future ...

I would like to point out that I stand by my "facts" ... I am not aware of any inaccuracies I stated in my review.

Since many use UR, I didn't feel it necessary to detail all that UR can do.

Most importantly, I use both product daily and have a good understanding of both products strengths and weaknesses.


-jj

JJ wrote:

I would like to point out that I stand by
my "facts" ... I am not aware of any inaccuracies I stated in my review.

while all facts you presented are possibly correct, saying A without saying B might put otherwise correct statement in a completely different light, making your statements/arguments very weak.

Since many use
UR, I didn't feel it necessary to detail all that UR can do.

you never know who's reading the site, just like I never heard of WR, many people might not know what UR is.

>Since
many use
>UR, I didn't feel it necessary to detail all that UR can do.

you never know
who's reading the site, just like I never heard of WR, many people might not know what UR
is.

Good point... I'll keep this in mind ...

-jj

JJ wrote:

quant wrote:
>Jan Rifkinson wrote:
>>However, I reject
>>the notion that
making a comment on
>another's representation of facts is flaming.
>>IMO, it's
simply commenting on a
>matter of accuracy vs inaccuracy. It's not personal.

>
>Ditto. As long as the
>arguments are "substantiated", I don't see any problem,
we are just discussing
>:)
>I'm, like others is here, keen to learn about other
programs that I might use in the
>future ...


I would like to point out that I stand by
my "facts" ... I am not aware of any inaccuracies I stated in my review.

Since many use
UR, I didn't feel it necessary to detail all that UR can do.

Most importantly, I use
both product daily and have a good understanding of both products strengths and
weaknesses.

I respect your opinion that but, for example, your statement "WR seems quicker and more stable than the current version of UR." implies that UR is not really stable.

I happen to think this is not accurate. While you may have had problems w UR on your system, I have not so for me UR is extremely stable. Again, I don't know about WR but will look forward to looking @ the product. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Since many use
UR, I didn't feel it necessary to detail all that UR can do.

just one more comment :)
When I was hunting for my perfect PIM, the statement similar to yours "UltraRecall… Not bad, but could be better", without any or with poor justification cost me about a month in time (trying various other softwares instead).
The statement read like this (citation):
"Ultra Recall: Another EATKS software. Actually, I don't think Ultra Recall is as inclusive as other EATKS software, but it's still way too much for a simple notetaker. Besides, it doesn't offer any unique or special features in the notetaking category."
http://www.donationcoder.com/Reviews/Archive/NoteTakers1/index.php

It turned out, that UR actually had/has almost all features that the others had + much more!
So, I'm a bit wary every time I read some comparison without clearly noting side by side what one soft does, does better/worse or doesnt do at all, compared to the other one ...

JJ

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

No, not yet. Initially when it came out I simply assumed that I had to be on a network, had to have Microsoft SQL Server 2000 or 2005 installed, had to have a server O/S, etc (I hadn't read the User Guide - http://www.macropool.com/en/download/webresearch/extensions/wr_network_userguide.pdf

After reading it I wasn't much the wiser, but at least the technical requirements looked feasible for me. But I've still dillydallied over trying it out for a number of reasons (none of which are necessarily valid or deal-breaking):
- because the cost if I decided to use it would be around $39 for a single user, I think);
- because it seems such a roundabout way to get full indexing of MS and pdf programs (as you commented, this should be in the basic program - and AFAIK it isn't for any web-capture software);
- because I'm not sure of the resource implications in terms of HDD space for the extra software, file storage, indexing, etc; and
- because I'm not clear how well it handles pdf files.

What do you think about the above? How is it working out for you?

Of course, the answer to all these "reasons" would be to take my own advice and d/l the add-on, but I'm a bit short of space these days - too much CRIMPING :-). I think my reluctance to do so is probably also related to how I use WR - i.e. as a hyperlinked repository for files I've taken notes on within Zoot and which Zoot cannot import at this time. This makes Zoot my main point of access when searching for information about what's in WR's files. For indexed searching of WR, I usually export any relevant project files into the windows filing system and index them, along with Zoot's db exported to a huge htm file, and all other relevant files I have knocking around in various folders, using dtSearch (a free indexed search program like X1 would probably do as well). Not an elegant solution, I know, but it's one way of dealing with the problem of notes and files in proprietory databases.

More than you or anyone else wanted to know probably :-).

Derek

Personally, I usually do not find comments on comments and their authors as useful as comments on/descriptions of the software. Having said this:

While a side-by-side comparison of products would be nice, such comparison would have to be done by someone very familiar with all of the products...probably too much to expect most of the time. Partial info can, however, be quite useful. For instance, my earlier posting requesting info on OneNote elicited enough useful information for me to be able to decide that it is not for me. The responders also saved me much time that I would otherwise have spent trying ON. For this I am most grateful.

Finally, as has been pointed out, each of our systems probably has accumulated some quirks over the years that might cause a particular software program to act flaky. For example, the Kensington Expert Mouse [actually a large trackball] disabled the "CTRL- =>" and "CTRL-

JJ wrote:

#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???

HI,
Sorry, I don't understand your post. I'm trying Webresearch Pro, *without* the network add-in and it seems that WR is indexing Word documents ? I' don't understand the need of the network version for that ?

Christophe