Forum Posts Feed
Web Research -->> WOW!
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Posted by quant
Jul 5, 2007 at 07:30 PM
>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.
Posted by Jan Rifkinson
Jul 5, 2007 at 08:46 PM
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
Posted by quant
Jul 5, 2007 at 09:01 PM
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 ...
Posted by JJ
Jul 5, 2007 at 09:19 PM
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
Posted by quant
Jul 5, 2007 at 09:40 PM
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.