(rant) Locate in bookmark folders
Thomas Anag.
standard feature in 3.0 ? [/rant]
too insignificant ?
-T
Rinaldi J. Montessi
Bookmarks > Organize Bookmarks > Search?
Rinaldi
--
"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last
theorem."
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
Thomas Anag.
> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>> [rant] Darn it :-) ... how come "locate in bookmark folders" is not a
>> standard feature in 3.0 ? [/rant]
>>
>> too insignificant ?
>
> Bookmarks > Organize Bookmarks > Search?
>
> Rinaldi
Nope :)
Rinaldi J. Montessi
Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what you need?
Bookmarks, btw, is not a folder, but a file: bookmarks.html
Rinaldi
--
We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glowworm.
-- Winston Churchill
Thomas Anag.
> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>>>> [rant] Darn it :-) ... how come "locate in bookmark folders" is not a
>>>> standard feature in 3.0 ? [/rant]
>>>>
>>>> too insignificant ?
>>> Bookmarks > Organize Bookmarks > Search?
>>>
>>> Rinaldi
>> Nope :)
>
> Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what you need?
>
> Bookmarks, btw, is not a folder, but a file: bookmarks.html
>
> Rinaldi
This --> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/622
... should be standard feature by now. It i very simple, but has
proven quite useful in the long run. I use it daily to make sure I add
bookmarks into the right folders in the side bar. (I am always working
with the folder structure in bookmarks sidebar).
-T
Irwin Greenwald
Why? Because you use it so much? I don't. So why should I pay for your
bloat?
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Thomas Anag.
> On 3/18/2008 11:45 PM, Thomas Anag. wrote:
>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>>>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>>>> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>>>>>> [rant] Darn it :-) ... how come "locate in bookmark folders" is not
>>>>>> a standard feature in 3.0 ? [/rant]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> too insignificant ?
>>>>> Bookmarks > Organize Bookmarks > Search?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rinaldi
>>>> Nope :)
>>> Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what you need?
>>>
>>> Bookmarks, btw, is not a folder, but a file: bookmarks.html
>>>
>>> Rinaldi
>> This --> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/622
>> ... should be standard feature by now. It i very simple, but has proven
>> quite useful in the long run. I use it daily to make sure I add
>> bookmarks into the right folders in the side bar. (I am always working
>> with the folder structure in bookmarks sidebar).
>>
>> -T
>
> Why? Because you use it so much? I don't. So why should I pay for your
> bloat?
>
Great response. Very tactful. Here is mine in the language you speak:
quote: "I don't"
That's because:
a) You are either too egotistical (or lazy) to ponder its usefulness, or
b) insufficiently clever to recognize the value it adds to the
bookmarks functionality.
It is a basic common-sense type of feature. (Opera does it out of the
box). The bookmark function is simply unfinished without it.
In either case do not bother to respond. You spoke a few words enough
that I am neither interested in your attitude or your shortsighted ilk.
-
Ron Hunter
Hummm. I don't use the sidebar, but I just drag a new bookmark from the
URL bar to where I want it in the bookmarks toolbar hierarchy. Does
that not work on sidebars?
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Is your arrogant attitude any better? Just because a feature seems
essential to you, doesn't mean everyone else needs, or wants, it.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Thomas Anag.
Hi Ron :-)
It relates to report (196509)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196509
When one has thousands of bookmarks categorized in folders and we
start typing a keyword on the bookmark sidebar then it starts
isolating the finds. The problem with firefox is that it gives us the
matches in a *dry* list (we do not see the folder hierarchy).
Many times in order to keep things organized we would search for a
bookmark which is similar in context (so that we can see which folder
was used for that) and then place a new bookmark in that same folder.
Here is an example how it currently works in Opera (which perfect in
contrast to Firefox 3.0b5pre):
http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/47864/2003689105235192604_rs.jpg
-T
Thomas Anag.
Well ... the opposite is arrogant too :-)
Thomas Anag.
Well yes :-) ... the response was made to sound just as arrogant as this:
--> Why? Because you use it so much? I don't. So why should I pay
for **your bloat** ? <--
On that token we might as well abandon Firefox 3.0 since anything
added to 2.0 should be considered "bloat". The old firefox worked fine
... and some do not see the need for any additions or any changes (we
can simply "live" with it indefinitely).
Technically, "bloat" would relate to unnecessary, unrelated,
peripheral, cosmetic, non-enhancing, non-improving stuff. You can say
ForecastFox is bloat and thus must never be embedded since it does not
relate to core browser functionality... but ... on the other hand the
requested feature is rudimentary and *does* relate to the core firefox
behavior, (particularly the usefulness in how it presents its bookmark
search results).
Can we say that the tree-view control in Windows Explorer is a
cosmetic bloat ? ... especially since many of us did just fine
browsing directories in command-line DOS back in the 90s ? Some things
simply enhance functionality by helping us visualize better.
In this case, having search results grouped in their respective folder
enriches the value of the search function without detracting anything.
:-)
David McRitchie
> bookmark which is similar in context (so that we can see which folder
> was used for that) and then place a new bookmark in that same folder.
>
> Here is an example how it currently works in Opera (which perfect in
> contrast to Firefox 3.0b5pre):
> http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/47864/2003689105235192604_rs.jpg
I agree with you that "Locate in Bookmark Folders" (622) should be builtin to
Firefox, as should "OpenBook" (42) extension which has important
options (that are not defaulted) but things are getting much worse in
Firefox 3 for those who organize bookmarks and/or who use keywords
and descriptions.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/622
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/42
At least it is recognized by Alex Faaborg (designer bookmarks interface)
that people who really use and depend on bookmarks will have a very
hard time with Firefox 3. I think we will be absolutely dependent on
extensions to mitigate reasonable use of bookmarks, and for starters those
two extensions do not currently work even with compatibility turned off.
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=mailman.1709.120432623...@lists.mozilla.org
The tracking bug for bookmarks mentions openbook extension (by url)
but no mention of Locate in Bookmarks.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393509
I like your picture of how a search within bookmarks works in Opera,
http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/47864/2003689105235192604_rs.jpg
and it's easy to tell it was not created by an Opera person. <grin>.
I would like to see that in Firefox. Don't know what that underline
under getting started is though,
But that example (Ctrl+B in Firefox for bookmarks sidebar) would kind of break
down if you have a lot of bookmarks and have more than 3 levels of
indexing and widely scattered hits. It also does not help, if you were
to sort on the columns in Organize bookmarks, so I'm going to copy
my bookmarks over to Opera to see what they actually look like there.
Tested in Opera:
I actually do have some keywords that don't use a %s token.
It didn't change Firefox keyword to Opera nickname, because Opera
won't accept colon in the nicknames. (A nickname can not contain a
period, question mark, colon, slash or back slash). And you can't really sort on
url address in the search hits because they are always arranged
by the main index structure so you can only sort within indexes.
That's two big strikes about that working out, unless there's an option
concerning sorting;
although big advantage for dragging bookmarks from one folder to
another (unless you have several hundred with "firefox" in title or url).
Opera has the same problem with multiple imports as other browsers.
So Opera doesn't really solve problem either once you sort search hits.
Aside from locate not being in Firefox, sorting on keyword in Firefox
doesn't work so great either, though no problem sorting on location
in Firefox bookmarks.
If anything really turns up I will add it to one of these.
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/places.htm
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/bookmarks.htm
FWIW: Locate in Bookmarks was a temporary fix for something
that was almost considered a stopper back in 2004. So it gets
marked as Verified Fixed because it didn't in and is now old
and nobody is likely to look at it since it is so marked and
would supersede any similar request.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/622
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255255
--
HTH,
David McRitchie,
Firefox Custom: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox.htm
Ron Hunter
Well, if Opera is perfect, then that is what you should be using.
However, while I have not looked at the current version of it, I never
found it in any respect 'perfect', and seriously doubt it is now, either.
But one should use the tool which does the best job for him/her.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Thomas Anag.
David,
That was a *wealth* of information !
Thank You for putting these thoughts together.
> At least it is recognized by Alex Faaborg (designer bookmarks
interface)
> that people who really use and depend on bookmarks will have a very
> hard time with Firefox 3. I think we will be absolutely
dependent on
> extensions to mitigate reasonable use of bookmarks, and for
starters those
> two extensions do not currently work even with compatibility turned
off.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=mailman.1709.120432623...@lists.mozilla.org
aah, I didn't know this. It seems like a conscious design decision
then. So, those of us who are dependent on bookmark hierarchies, tags,
etc might be better off starting to look for some alternative
solutions at the moment.
> I like your picture of how a search within bookmarks works in Opera,
> http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/47864/2003689105235192604_rs.jpg
> and it's easy to tell it was not created by an Opera person. <grin>.
> I would like to see that in Firefox. Don't know what that underline
> under getting started is though,
That underline is an artifact. When you drag a bookmark to change its
position, the underline shows up as a guide to tell you where the
bookmark will fall once your drop it. After moving a bookmark (or two)
around ... I got stuck with that line.
So, it has no significance in the image I provided earlier; it is a
little FF glitch.
> But that example (Ctrl+B in Firefox for bookmarks sidebar) would
kind of break
> down if you have a lot of bookmarks and have more than 3 levels of
> indexing and widely scattered hits. It also does not help, if you
were
> to sort on the columns in Organize bookmarks, so I'm going to copy
> my bookmarks over to Opera to see what they actually look like there.
True, sorting would be harder to decipher if the search was applied in
the bookmark manager window. It would probably do a topical sort
within the hierarchy. We might have a toggle to switch from
"Hierarchical" search results to flat list view (as it is now) when we
need to sort across the entire found set.
EDIT: I just tested in Opera and it does exactly that. It you try to
sort, it only sorts topically the bottom level of each folder.
> I actually do have some keywords that don't use a %s token.
> It didn't change Firefox keyword to Opera nickname, because Opera
> won't accept colon in the nicknames. (A nickname can not contain a
> period, question mark, colon, slash or back slash).
I am not an Opera user ... but it seems the issue above is more like
an import/export thing and how Opera translates things during import.
Though, it doesn't really have much bearing for the topic at hand
(about hierarchical search results)
(In general, I only have Opera floating on my drive, but don't use it
enough to know the ins-and-outs. Basically I don't like the idea that
it bundles the mail, and everything, in one suite especially since its
mail program is not yet as feature complete as Thunderbird) ...
> So Opera doesn't really solve problem either once you sort search
hits.
Right.
So, maybe we can come up with something that surpasses even Opera :)
Say, (hypothetically) we did have a toggle, as mentioned earlier, that
switches the searched set from hierarchical to flat. Say, you do a
search and select to see the results in "flat view". Now, you do some
sorting and you do find the bookmark you wanted ... then you switch
back to hierarchical view get to see where that bookmark came from
(which folder it came from).
Well, come to think of it ... this is exactly what "locate in bookmark
folders" ended up doing. We would have to do a search where FF would
give us a dry list of matched entries, then we would scroll down to
the one we wanted and then select to "locate" it in bookmark folders.
> If anything really turns up I will add it to one of these.
> http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/places.htm
> http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/bookmarks.htm
You have a great site there David. I will definitely spend some time
looking around there if you don't mind :) ... it seems you have put a
lot of work in it !
Thank you once again for walking along side and pondering about this
topic a little.
Best,
-T
David McRitchie
> David McRitchie wrote:
>> At least it is recognized by Alex Faaborg (designer bookmarks interface)
>> that people who really use and depend on bookmarks will have a very
>> hard time with Firefox 3. I think we will be absolutely dependent on
>> extensions to mitigate reasonable use of bookmarks, and for starters those
>> two extensions do not currently work even with compatibility turned off.
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=mailman.1709.120432623...@lists.mozilla.org
>
> aah, I didn't know this. It seems like a conscious design decision
> then. So, those of us who are dependent on bookmark hierarchies, tags,
> etc might be better off starting to look for some alternative
> solutions at the moment.
OpenBook extension vs. Bookmark tagging and quick bookmarks:
Certainly a conscious design decision, but since the problem was
acknowledged, I'm pretty confident that there will be a solution
for better display of bookmark properties when creating them, but
not before Fx3 has shipped, because they are going to ship regardless.
Probably will eventually get options to display every
field, unlikely to get automatic filling in options that OpenBook had
been able to do. Afraid some of added stuff got so important at higher
levels that they purposely hid critical bookmark functions.
Probably can't really tell the difference between keyword and tags
(good reason to include a colon, on my part that does distinguish keywords).
Unfortunately as far as "Locate in Bookmark Folders" is concerned
we will be stuck with having to use an extension that currently does
not work.
--
David
Leonidas Jones
Personally, I have no need for it either. Its better offered as an
estension, so those who do need it can get it, and those of us who do
not, do not get the bloat. And, if you don't use it, it *is* bloat.
The beauty of the program is in its extensibility. One person gets what
he needs, i get what I need.
Lee
John Thompson
> Thomas Anag. wrote:
>>
>> Here is an example how it currently works in Opera (which perfect in
>> contrast to Firefox 3.0b5pre):
>> http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/47864/2003689105235192604_rs.jpg
> Well, if Opera is perfect, then that is what you should be using.
> However, while I have not looked at the current version of it, I never
> found it in any respect 'perfect', and seriously doubt it is now, either.
> But one should use the tool which does the best job for him/her.
I don't think he was saying that Opera was perfect, only that its
implementation of this specific feature was "perfect" with respect to
how he likes bookmarks to be organized.
Opera's a decent browser, but it isn't perfect. There are some things it
does better than Firefox, but in general I still prefer Firefox. Mostly
because of Firefox's extensibility I can configure it work the way I
want better than I could with Opera.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)