On 08.08.2011, at 07:24, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 2011, at 15:04 , Christian Pleul wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07.08.2011, at 17:54, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2011, at 08:03 , Christian Pleul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, if I asked it before and just forgot. Anyway, would it not a an
>>>> interesting feature, since I can imagine that people who studying e.g.
>>>> research papers use this field to put their notes and excerpts in the
>>>> annote field.
>>>
>>> Interesting, yes, but there has to be a cutoff point. For instance,
>>> suppose I'd rather have abstract searchable instead of annote. Who wins?
>>
>> There can't be a winner. Make the abstract separately searchable is as
>> important as the annote field itself. And I think, it is a very important
>> point when using BD for e.g. scientific research.
>
> I did not make my point clearly enough. You want arbitrary fields to be
> indexed and available from the search bar. This is not practical.
>
> Compare with Apple Mail; you don't have the option to add particular headers
> in the search bar, and you're limited to subject, from, to, etc. For
> BibDesk, we chose a reasonable, limited set of particular fields to index.
> All fields are included when you search by "any field."
>
>>> There are additional problems involved due to the use of Search Kit for
>>> searching, as you have to create a separate index for each field that is
>>> indexed. Computationally, this will get expensive for larger fields &
>>> bibliographies, so you could end up with a beachball on opening a document.
>>
>>
>> Since I am not a programmer, I can to make a statement on this point. But
>> when making it possible to search the entire file content as well as skim
>> notes, I thought it would make sense (see above) to do this kind of search
>> for information which can be inserted directly in BD itself.
>
> Those are features that cannot be provided cleanly by some other means, such
> as Spotlight. You /can/ search abstract/annote/foo/bar fields using "any
> field" or smart groups.
As I wrote in the other thread, the idea to use these smart groups for certain
search operation is interesting. I will give it a try.
Anyway, to keep all "searches" safe in one place and not ending up with a to
crowded sidebar, it would be great to group them into a folder or something
similar. Is there already a way to do this?
On 08.08.2011, at 01:47, Alexander H. Montgomery wrote:
> [...]
> Thinking out loud here, perhaps there is some tweak to the UI that could make
> this more obvious? Although I don't normally think of it as a paragon of UI,
> the Finder does this through having a "search box" and a limited number of
> "search what" buttons below it just as BibDesk does... but then it has
> additional limits you can set below that and a "save" button, which saves it
> as a Smart Search... perhaps in BibDesk, it could save the search as a Smart
> Group.
That sounds not bad, may the developers could think about such a way to include
that feature.
Best,
--
Christian
-Click. Boom. Amazing!-
Steve Jobs, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-users mailing list
Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
