Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On Aug 8, 2011, at 8:38, Christian Pleul wrote: 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 All of these questions: no. Moreover for all of these questions: if you want more detailed reasoning than search the archives. Christiaan -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On 08.08.2011, at 11:01, Christiaan Hofman wrote: On Aug 8, 2011, at 8:38, Christian Pleul wrote: 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 All of these questions: no. Moreover for all of these questions: if you want more detailed reasoning than search the archives. Christiaan Christiaan, I understand if you short in time and some points have already been discussed in the past, but just no appears to be a not very helpful reply on a general discussion list about using an application. Anyway, there have been a lot of interesting aspects regarding my questions and will give it a try. But grouping some of the smart groups at the sidebar would be imho a great feature! Best, -- Christian -Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.- Dave Barry -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On Aug 8, 2011, at 02:16 , Christian Pleul wrote: 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. It's a nice idea, but Finder uses Spotlight for all of its searching, so it has a single search language to deal with. BibDesk uses Search Kit indexes for the toolbar search field, and something completely different for smart groups. There's no possibility of translation between the two. But grouping some of the smart groups at the sidebar would be imho a great feature! There are many sound reasons for not doing this, and if you are interested in them, search the archives. There has been lots of discussion of nested groups on this list and the developers list, and it's annoying to repeat it every time someone thinks this is a great new idea. -- Adam -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On 08.08.2011, at 16:35, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: On Aug 8, 2011, at 02:16 , Christian Pleul wrote: 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. It's a nice idea, but Finder uses Spotlight for all of its searching, so it has a single search language to deal with. BibDesk uses Search Kit indexes for the toolbar search field, and something completely different for smart groups. There's no possibility of translation between the two. But grouping some of the smart groups at the sidebar would be imho a great feature! There are many sound reasons for not doing this, and if you are interested in them, search the archives. There has been lots of discussion of nested groups on this list and the developers list, and it's annoying to repeat it every time someone thinks this is a great new idea. -- Adam How do you suggest to search the archive? I went to http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bibdesk-users but did not find a way to search it. -- Christian -Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.- Dave Barry -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On Aug 8, 2011, at 17:12, Christian Pleul wrote: On 08.08.2011, at 16:35, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: On Aug 8, 2011, at 02:16 , Christian Pleul wrote: 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. It's a nice idea, but Finder uses Spotlight for all of its searching, so it has a single search language to deal with. BibDesk uses Search Kit indexes for the toolbar search field, and something completely different for smart groups. There's no possibility of translation between the two. But grouping some of the smart groups at the sidebar would be imho a great feature! There are many sound reasons for not doing this, and if you are interested in them, search the archives. There has been lots of discussion of nested groups on this list and the developers list, and it's annoying to repeat it every time someone thinks this is a great new idea. -- Adam How do you suggest to search the archive? I went to http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bibdesk-users but did not find a way to search it. -- Christian Mailing Lists Search Mail Lists perhaps? Christiaan -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On 08.08.2011, at 17:17, Christiaan Hofman wrote: On Aug 8, 2011, at 17:12, Christian Pleul wrote: On 08.08.2011, at 16:35, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: On Aug 8, 2011, at 02:16 , Christian Pleul wrote: 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. It's a nice idea, but Finder uses Spotlight for all of its searching, so it has a single search language to deal with. BibDesk uses Search Kit indexes for the toolbar search field, and something completely different for smart groups. There's no possibility of translation between the two. But grouping some of the smart groups at the sidebar would be imho a great feature! There are many sound reasons for not doing this, and if you are interested in them, search the archives. There has been lots of discussion of nested groups on this list and the developers list, and it's annoying to repeat it every time someone thinks this is a great new idea. -- Adam How do you suggest to search the archive? I went to http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bibdesk-users but did not find a way to search it. -- Christian Mailing Lists Search Mail Lists perhaps? Christiaan Indeed... It appears when you hover it at the last point of a drop-down list excellent usability sourceforge! -- Christian -Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.- Steve Jobs, 2005 -- BlackBerryreg; 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
[Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
Would it be possible to _only_ search in the Annote field, as it is possible for Title, Skim Notes etc? Best -- Christian -The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.- Bill Gates, Nov 1984 -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
On 07.08.2011, at 16:58, Christiaan Hofman wrote: On Aug 7, 2011, at 14:30, Christian Pleul wrote: Would it be possible to _only_ search in the Annote field, as it is possible for Title, Skim Notes etc? Best -- Christian -The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.- Bill Gates, Nov 1984 Why would you expect a different answer now? 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. -- Christian -Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.- Steve Jobs, 2005 -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
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. 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. Best, -- Christian -Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time.- Bill Gates, Jan 2004 -- BlackBerryreg; 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
Re: [Bibdesk-users] Annote field: search
All fields are searchable through using Smart Groups. Just hit command-option-G and you'll be good to go with Annote, Abstract, or any other field you can dream up. Plus the searches are saved. 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. -AHM On 2011-08-07, at 3:04 PM, 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. 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. Best, -- Christian -Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time.- Bill Gates, Jan 2004 -- BlackBerryreg; 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 -- BlackBerryreg; 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
