Forum Posts Feed
CRIMP Alert: A Compiled List of PDF Managing and Search Tools
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Derek Cornish
Feb 8, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Ike Washington wrote:
>
>I index my zoot databases using dtSearch directly, without converting them
>first into html files. Works okay - some garbage indexed too. Having searched within
>dtSearch, I launch the file containing my search term from there; the correct Zoot
>database opens; I search within it to locate exactly whatever I’m looking
>for.
Yes, I should have emphasized that, since Zoot uses plain-text, its *.zot databases can be directly indexed, and the display is pretty good. In fact, if I’m just after a quotation, I often simply cut-and-paste what I want directly from the dtSearch display, without launching the file in Zoot. I do prefer the html display, however, although it is a bit of a pain to have to keep updating the exported file (and searching is slower, too, because the file is so large).
>
>Where to store data? I switched from Net Snippets to Scrapbook/Firefox. A real
>delight to use - html, pdf, txt, doc, jpg, gif. One of the main reasons why I use Firefox.
>And dtSearch indexes scrapbook files perfectly, Zoot links,
>perfectly.
Agreed, it is a great add-on and has some advantages over Net Snippets - especially the fact that it is still being developed. From my POV the two disadvantages are (i) no means yet - I think - of categorizing or keywording the files, although I’m sure that will change; (ii) although the imported files are stored in the windows filing system the names under which they were originally saved are replaced by numbers - unlike the case for Net Snippets. This means that they tend to be harder to find, consult and browse through outside Scrapbook. (It also raises problems if one wants to sync the Scrapbook folders with Zoot - something one can do with Net Snippets ones.)
I wouldn’t want exaggerate the importance of these issues, especially as using Web Research entails a whole lot of other compromises. But it means that for me there are projects where Web Research is a better fit for the things I want to do. I tend to use it as a combination of reference library, and project organizer for downloaded files. OTOH, I tend to use Scrapbook as a temporary holder of miscellaneous files.
Derek
Posted by Ike Washington
Feb 10, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Derek Cornish wrote:
>
From my POV the two
>disadvantages are (i) no means yet - I think - of categorizing or keywording the files,
>although I’m sure that will change; (ii) although the imported files are stored in the
>windows filing system the names under which they were originally saved are replaced
>by numbers - unlike the case for Net Snippets….
I don’t worry too much about keywording scraps since I tend to use Scrapbook to store the full text of the pdf or html file. Every word stored there get indexed by dtSearch. I sometimes add an annotation, say a unique project title - this gets indexed too.
Yes, I’m not too keen either on Scrapbook imposing time stamps as Windows folder titles.
Still, quite amazing for a free application.
Anyone interested in finding out more about Scrapbook should read its manual: http://amb.vis.ne.jp/mozilla/scrapbook/ - scroll down the page to the pdf tutorial link. “Tutorial” sells it short. Thinking I didn’t need a scrapbook tutorial, I didn’t bother with it until recently. But it’s full of best practice gems. In particular, check out the section towards the end - “Using ScrapBook in web-based research”.
>I wouldn’t want exaggerate the importance of these issues, especially as
>using Web Research entails a whole lot of other compromises. But it means that for me
>there are projects where Web Research is a better fit for the things I want to do.
I remember Web Research as being pretty good. But, as I remember, it didn’t allow the folder view to be filtered. This became a problem for me since I created a complicated system which tried to cover all aspects of the research task.
Yes, I think it’s a good idea to use applications for particular purposes: in my case, Scrapbook as a reference library, Zoot as a project and clips organizer, local wikipedia, among others, for long-term notes.
Perhaps I can find a specific use for Web Research. Always a crimper…
(Not the greatest name in a googleverse full of “web research” software - http://www.macropool.com/en/products/webresearch/professional/index.html takes you to Web Research. Perhaps Macropool should have stuck with “ContentSaver”?)
Ike
Posted by Derek Cornish
Feb 10, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Ike Washington wrote:
>I don’t worry too much about keywording scraps since I
>tend to use Scrapbook to store the full text of the pdf or html file. Every word stored
>there get indexed by dtSearch. I sometimes add an annotation, say a unique project
>title - this gets indexed too.
I like to use WR’s categories as a way of classifying/keywording my imported files in multiple ways. This gets over the limitations of the Windows filing system or WR’s tree - in both of which cases, one can only store the file in question in one place at a time.
>I remember Web Research as being pretty good. But, as I remember, it
>didn’t allow the folder view to be filtered. This became a problem for me since I
>created a complicated system which tried to cover all aspects of the research
>task.
That’s right, it doesn’t. But you can always hide the folder tree, which only provides a basic way of filing content, and just work with categories via the “categories” view. I don’t know if this would allow you to achieve what you want, but it is an option.
> Perhaps Macropool should have stuck with “ContentSaver”?
Yes, using common names - “Brainstorm”, “Keynote” etc. - does create problems when trying to search for them on the web. Perhaps a good reason after all for names like “Infohesive”? :-)
Derek
Posted by Ike Washington
Feb 23, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Derek Cornish wrote:
>I like to use WR’s categories as a way of
>classifying/keywording my imported files in multiple ways. This gets over the
>limitations of the Windows filing system or WR’s tree - in both of which cases, one can
>only store the file in question in one place at a time. ...
... you
>can always hide the folder tree, which only provides a basic way of filing content, and
>just work with categories via the “categories” view. I don’t know if this would allow
>you to achieve what you want, but it is an option.
Yes, I think WR beats Scrapbook on this point. Having to decide which folder a scrap should go to can become tedious as some of my multi-scrapbooks are quite complex, folders inside folders inside folders, and because I’ve become accustomed to Zoot/EverNote and the idea that a folder is notional, really just a tag. However, I spend much of my time in Firefox; I don’t want yet another window to have to worry about. Choices… choices.
Ike
Posted by Susanne
Feb 24, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Ike Washington wrote:
>.... However, I spend much of my time in Firefox; I don’t want
>yet another window to have to worry about. Choices… choices.
I too spend much (too much) time in Firefox, so yes, WR is another application, but, one of the things that I really like about it is that when capturing information, like Scrapbook, it allows me to decide _while capturing_ where to put the page or clip and assign any categories. So there is no need to “switch windows” to classify the information right away.
Much as I appreciate other things about Surfulater, this ability of deciding where to put the information while I am in the capture process has been decisive for me (maybe the new Surfulater Version, which is promised to add tags will change that).
And yes, I am aware of the fact that UltraRecall will allow you to at least decide what Folder or item to assign a new clipping to as well - and, while I really like the feature rich UltraRecall (and I do use it, if only for limited Purposes) getting information into UR ist just t o o s l o w. Loading a web page may take 10 Seconds for WR or Surfulater - the same page takes up to 45 seconds in UR - the first page of the day can take up to 1,5 minutes!. Same Notebook, same day. That is just prohibitive.
So, thanks Ike, now you got me posting my 2 cents and have added one woman (white, european) to the forum demographics ;-)