Forum Posts Feed
Web Research -->> WOW!
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›
Posted by Ike Washington
Jul 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM
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
>
Posted by Graham Rhind
Jul 5, 2007 at 10:20 AM
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
Posted by JJ
Jul 5, 2007 at 01:47 PM
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
Posted by quant
Jul 5, 2007 at 02:32 PM
>#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.
Posted by JJ
Jul 5, 2007 at 02:44 PM
FYI… WR requires Scrapbook to work with Firefox.
This is the set-up I have.
-jj