Paul, again, most of the time, I clip the whole text of a web page but then quickly bold important passages, or do it later on. It's not so much about cutting out legit material there (but cutting out all the "crap" around), but of FACILITATING FURTHER ACCESS upon that same material: You read a text, you form some thoughts about it or simply find some passages more important than others, and so you bold them or whatever, the point being, your second reading, months later perhaps, will not start from scratch on then, but will concrentrate on your "highlighted" passages, and also, these are quickly recognizable - now for simply downloaded web pages: you'll start from zero, and even will have some crap around your text. I think it RIDICULOUS that these pim's do their own, sub-standard "browsers" (e.g. in MI, in UR...), but don't think about processing nor of clearly distinguishing of bits within these "original" downloaded pages. All this is so poor here, and in direct comparison, the pdf "system" is much more practical indeed. This being said, I hate the pdf format, too, for its numerous limitations. But downloaded "original" web pages are worse than anything - and totally useless; as said, in years, I never "lost" anything by my way of doing it.
We're directly comparing the same things in different ways.
You're directly comparing present web clipping with present PDF "system". (Although I admit I don't know what you mean by system here as it's all about editing the format. I'm not familiar with any system outside of opening a PDF in a viewer or an editor)
The picture you should consider is directly comparing future full webpage clippers with the present PDF system.
What do YOU do (rhetorical question here), with your "downloaded original web pages" - you all must read them a second time, before doing any clipping. That's what I'm after here: The original web pages becomes a hindrance as soon as you quickly have read it once: After this primal vision, it should become something more accessible than the original web page is. Pdf is much better here, and my system of downloading plain text, then re-format it to my means, is best... if you have just a few pictures, tables, formulas that is - hence the ubiquity of pdf in sciences, and rightly so.
The system is too slow for me. I also have sensitive and easily tired eyes.
I don't clip something I have read. That's either bookmark or copy-paste into a text editor. Any type of picture, tables, formulas (though I admit I rarely do this) are screenshot and set besides the .txt.
When I clip I plan to either read it on the software or use the clipping process (highlighting to Diigo then reading from library) as an incentive to read.
PDF is much much worse since PDF editors can be more bulky than browsers. To copy one line, you must switch from hand tool to select tool or at least some variant of that. To truly edit it, you must have an idea of how to edit it.
In contrast web clippers are much clearer. If you selection - clip, you know why you're doing it already instead of just getting the text. (Maybe the text lay-out is much more readable, maybe the imagery of the lay-out helps better with data retention.) If you highlight, you know the limitations of the actual highlighter. (Diigo will make it easy to just read the highlights in the library, Scrapbook + can have different colors for different emotions/priorities, Surfulater's data will be delegated to metadata so not all highlights need to be highlights.)
It's just more seamless even when you're stuck clip-consuming it in the traditional way.
An example amoung thousands: You download rulings. You quickly bold the passages appearing important for your current context. Then you clip, from this whole text body, some passages - probable, you'll do this after some days, i.e. after having downloaded another 80 or 120 rulings in your case, i.e. you won't do this after really knowing what's decisive here, hence your need to read, and to "highlight passages within", many more such rulings. So what I'm doing here then, I trigger my clipping macros on some passages within these bold text blocks (or even between them if in the meantime it occured to me that my initial emphasis was partly misplaced), and I paste them, together with the origin, url, name of item and such, into the target texts.
What you're describing is more the traditional way of doing things.
It's not bad, but it does not work for anyone who are on the victim side of unproductivity.
I can't highlight for highlight's sake. My brain is not smart enough to create the association in the future.
It's like if there's a fire and there's time to visit a webclip of what to do in a fire articles with PC, that highlighting style blinds me.
Only it does not have to be as urgent as a fire. Coding philosophies, basic keyboard shortcut purposes, what to read and why to read something... all those overwhelm me. I need those data as visible to me as possible and I need those highlights to still be copy pasted in a different interface - to-do list, different PIM, cloud service...it's not a double backup or a reference file. It's about a rotation of data consumption.
Much like opening a spreadsheet for one related issue and opening a word processor for a related manual and opening a text editor for the ReadMe that's in that format. As much as possible I cannot afford a scenario where data is just clipped and reminded. I need as big of a holistic structure or else I'd forgot my previous data associations.
I also need these lay-out things such as aesthetic that sometimes can only be captured in full webpages because again, my memory fails me. The monotony of text too often discourage me to associating and connecting datas. (I can barely finish a PDF nowadays. I can read a couple of pages but returning to it is like a task of separating what's in front of me to what I'm currently reading.)
the real prob being that both force you to begin at zero with its respective content then.
I don't use UltraRecall but see here's the thing. I can't start at a bookmarked content or else I have to start at zero or it paralyzes me into not reading the content.
Different people have different way of taking things in and as you said, it's all about education but I would raise you this: It's not about an educated stance, it's dispelling myths of what a proper stance is.
Do you realize that in the end, it's again about the "accessibility of information"? Let's say you read all these things, and stored all these things. Then, in order to really have them available, in their bits, for your work, I have to browse 100 rulings for these important passages (remember this was done by first reading, so perhaps my reading time there was about 120 p.c. of yours at the same time) - whilst you will read all these 100 rulings again, which makes more than double reading time, since your second reading will be slowed down by your fear to not have "got" all the important passages here (when, in my work flow, it's probably time for underlining sub-passages now), and then, as I do, you'll export your clips.
See, this is what smart people don't realize about dumb people like me...it's not about the accessibility but the utilization of data.
I mentioned this elsewhere here with regards to the subject of a personal productivity system, a decent person (even a failing grade person in school) can consume many underrated data provided they have the access and the desire to consume that access.
A dumb person have a hard time still utilizing it. It's more towards the genre of personal productivity systems but this is brought up because it's a much simpler analogy.
Multiple highlights can be hard to test as it's very user based and the data might as well be liquid.
A single entry to-do list like 'reformat OS quickly' can work for you but it cannot work for me.
Then the common personal productivity systems changed this issue into it not being your next action or it not being S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely)
They don't really understand how tough this is for a person who can't even remember a conversation in the radio as a future reference or who jots down notes but can't even return to those notes which creates more overhead.
It's very hard to empathize with someone who can only desire to clean install an Operating System so long as they download an iso rather than burning an iso or just picking up a CD.
For webpages this is more complicated. I cannot have a web clipped Wikihow page tampering or organized with a longer article on the same subject. Even when the accessibility of say just moving the mouse so that the Wikihow page is no longer visible, it traps my mind into thinking this next data have to be treated with the same light hearted mood as the Wikihow page.
Aesthetic, Dynamic and Mechanic
The more capable a user, the more they underrate Aesthetic.
The more studious-receptive a user is to a given subject, the more they can forgive the Dynamic.
Now an average person (most likely someone who does not need a personal productivity system or can tweak their own) can access past recorded data where the aesthetic, dynamic and mechanic are on close to an equal scale. If they have partners or positive relationships, it's even possible to cheat as that workflow produce rational sense by giving birth to irrational scenarios for the conscious mind to feed upon.
Now a dumb person who has no one to defer to for his data (maybe they won't understand why data so simple that it can bookmark needs to be referred to by this person as a clipping) must access data in a broken highly volatile scale of aesthetic first for motivation and aesthetic last for memory retention or data context/data location retention.
The difference between a nitpicked aesthetic and a necessary aesthetic is that if you just like a webpage to look a certain way you have to push the scale of liking it very high at the beginning and just keep being reminded of that.
Necessary aesthetic is almost nil.
The beauty may help but it's how regularly you type the url of a storage site without bookmarking it or it's how regular you think to yourself, this data is clipped here not because it's a web clipper but it's the first thing that came to mind and I recall my other data on this topic is here too.
At this point, the obvious cliche of just describing or re-describing accessibility ends here.
The dynamic of data must be extremely exportable to your head
. Everything from why you are doing this to silliness such as how the window pops up will be crucial to how you do something.
This is the utility portion of the data. Every data, even if you don't want to utilize it, must have utility to a dumb person or that apathy sets up the apathy to the next data.
At this point, I would assume you still get it but maybe the confusion comes from why you think a dumb person should scale so much of that information into utilization if they are just going to skip a text. Maybe you think it's just a form of appetizer or lack of knowledge.
I'll leave you to interpret that on your own because it's not like I have studied the issue.
The last part is what I think you are ignoring the most because it is the most irrational. Just keep in mind, I'm not describing how Surfulater should be in the future to compensate this need but am attempting to paint you a picture where you're two mountains back when you ask me whether I realize or do not realize accessibility of information.
See, for someone who is capable, mechanic is not contingent with information. You don't fix a car by reading a book.
You read a book then fix a car.
Same thing with the fire analogy. You don't try to learn how to prevent a fire when there's actually a fire.
You create a space. You take advantage of that space. Then you consume the data.
For my lifestyle it just does not work that way. It does not matter whether I'm living my lifestyle or I've gone out of my lifestyle. It's just very hard to simulate mechanic.
It's irrational I know but I consider the reception of some services to be proof of how those irrationality can exist in all people but some have better adaptation than others.
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the mechanics of software or information capture but the mechanics of information itself.
To give you a hint (but not a direct example) of this irrationality.
Why would you clip this?
Shouldn't you guys be writing a blog (or 2) or something?
...and how by clipping it would you understand that it's not as deep a subject as you first explained it?
For an average person, they can answer why they would clip this without needing to clip this and the answer can move between shades of reminders and reference. i.e. the mechanic of information is to fulfill the mechanic of reminders and reference.
When you access information like this, sometimes the text, the table data, the formula image is fine. It could be better but it's fine.
A dumb person (or at least who I am) the text, the table data, the formula image must rise up beyond utility and beyond...back to aesthetics.
Every data does not have to be this way but every information must have a particular peculiarity to it that makes it not simply about accessibility of information. Aesthetic simply replace reminders. Mechanic of information is replaced by dynamic of information. Finally, mechanic is irrationally fulfilled by being able to unlearn the information. i.e. when a highlighted sentence stops being a sentence then and only then does it start being accessible information.
Again, just to re-emphasize, it does not have any thing specifically to do with the features and direction of Surfulater and full web clippers
but rather simply to simulate throwing back your question at you.
Do you realize that even before information becomes information or gets gathered as information or gets read as information there are things that can trigger information without being words? There are singular 'word' that can convey information beyond what information can do? (So much so that there's a scam book called Power of Words that's being sold on Amazon if the reviewers are to be believed)
Do you know that there are certain concepts that can only be described in their native language?
Just a reply written by someone with a communication problem can confuse you and you have an educated stance.
As you have remarked, you can read and understand the English words but some things seem to mix around each other.
Imagine how difficult it can be, even at just a monotonous level, to decipher and realize information that are sarcasm, posters that are trolling, posters that send back confusing feedback like you are throwing an ad hoc, multiple contradicting instructions...and then...and then...have a mechanic that can remember this situation even when you have no real research background nor know how to instigate a study without the backing of a university or without the safety of a group.
There's just no comparison to the access of information that you are describing. It's like every switching of the tab or every wrongly highlighted word can act as an advertisement while watching the television.
It's like every accessed information must not be backed up but be auto-recalled up to consciousness.
It's like every consumption of information can suddenly be filled by paranoia at a certain time so it has to be a different type of storage system.
It's just...I don't know how to put it any other way...but that different people consume and absorb and read information differently and when you add that a dumb person is inherently less capable and said dumb person happens to have a communication problem that's not exactly speaking in un-decipherable jargon...consuming information just becomes different. Some traditional methods help. Some traditional methods don't. Some traditional access of information can go for as much as being so irrational yet works wonders for that person.
Ok, in one single situation your way of doing things would appear acceptable: When you download pages without even reading them first in the slightest possible way. But then, is it sensible to do this?
It's tough to answer your question here because I have not revealed my way of doing things so hopefully the added detail above will better narrow this question as to what way you are thinking of when you say this.
See, it's one thing to say one did not read but there are different ways of "not reading".
Speed readers do not read so they can read fast but unless you're familiar with some of the theory, it does not make sense. To me, it does not make sense either but it's a form of phonetics dodging I think. It's really hard to explain. The most common explanation I've read is how speed reading makes novel reading "not fun".
My way is more dependent on how I downloaded it. Was it from Scrapbook+, I'll read it a different way. Was it from a RSS reader? What's the topic of the RSS reader? Was it from .mht, then why do I want to associate this information with the Opera browser. There's really no fine line difference between how I bookmark links with how I download web pages.
It all comes back to expected utility, the time I am clipping the text, the potential interruption I may have...I know these all sound redundant because we all plan how to read and consume and access information but that's why I wrote what I wrote above. You don't really want to keep assuming we're consuming information the same way.
Something as simple as not reading text could mean to you simply as not reading text.
To me, it can be the equivalent of seeing the header in DC and not reading that topic but instead of bookmarking it or archiving it, I clipped it.
Another variation could be that I don't read the sentence, I read the singular words or set of words and then highlight from there. i.e. what's the emotional state this set of words are doing to me and a) do I just copy paste it to PopUp Wisdom or b) I just highlight it in Diigo and then there's the c) d) e) f) and it will increase if I ever buy Surfulater.
There's some irony here, too: There's a pim user fraction who says, I'm happy with plain text. I'm reverting web pages to plain text, whilst many people probably fear loss of information when they don't "get" the formatted text of the web page in its original form. And then, I need formatting capabilities in my pim or whatever. So, "do your own formatting". Once more, most of the time, I get the text in whole, then "highlight" by formatting means. It's rare that I just clip a paragraph or so, because indeed I fear my changing clipping considerations. And indeed, it's very probable you need some ruling for a certain aspect now, but for another aspect in the future, so it's sensible to download it in full, then clip parts from this whole text body - but even then, it's of utmost utility to have important passages "highlighted", from which you'll clip again and again.
Yep. All I can say to that is we humans are interesting.
And in general, please bear in mind that you choose at any given moment. Ok, it's the whole page you download, but from a site containing perhaps 150 pages or more, i.e. even when you try to NOT "choose beforehand" in order to preserve the material in its entirety, your choice will have made upon which pages you download in full, and which you didn't download.
Sadly as I have not found a software that can provide that option, I can't even make that choice.
I have to keep compromising and it's not easy.
The one positive is while in PDFs sometimes you can't drop the afterword or the prologue or the chapter, webpages can be cheated that way by using multiple tools which provide multiple views.
But the real point is, try to not bloat your own data warehouse, with irrelevant material, even when technically, you're able to cope with it: Your mind, too, will have to cope with it, and if you have too much "dead data" within your material, it'll outgrow the available processing time of your mind.
Not from a software development outcome.
It's why I brought up the Opera lite and Opera bloat issue.
The data was not bloating and slowing Opera enough that they needed to fix it but to many of their users, it was an issue.
Since neither side really were invested to see it through, no one really get that the unmentioned information they were sending out was that there is a market for Google Chrome.
Google Chrome came, it was not Opera lite and it was not as lightweight as Opera bloated but first impressions last and Chrome became one of the fastest piece of software (not just browser) to be adopted by not only the general multi-browser users but websites, Linux users, etc. (Some of that was helped by Google's marketing but most of that was just being Opera lite plus extensions no different from Firefox just being ad-less Opera as an IE counterpart when it once again took advantage of replacing irrational dead data with non-data that the masses wanted i.e. no ads, no e-mail program, no rss reader, cloud sync, tab moving animations that give the illusion of speed, lightweight when it has less tabs.)
As far as dead data...let's just say it's why a recent theme with some of these Sherlock books is how Sherlock did not bother to learn to know that the Earth revolved around the sun. (This
being the prime example.)
...but as the critical review
The unconscious mind is not under your control
but then it gets replied with:
It may be naive to presuppose the unconscious can be controlled but it in fact, in certain contexts can, over time.
As an example, when I was younger, the thought of speaking before a group or approaching an attractive group evoked an immediate anxiety response which I sought to avoid. However, today, such actions cause no apprehension ion me whatsoever. Clearly, my sense of dread was immediate, not subject to forethought, and not a matter of choice. It arouse automatically.
I have over time "moved the needle" in numerous other ways.
I believe the fallacy in your argument is that you have taken a very mysterious part of the brain and created a maxim out of what is essentially a nominalization. Can you show me the unconscious? Dissect it?
Of course not. It is an abstract concept--real in whatever way it is but certainly to say that it can not be controlled to any degree is presumptious.
It's a never ending debate and one that I would rather not raise in this thread nor this forum. I saw how apathetic some people can be to something they hold of value like the United States Constitution, no way can this irrationality of dead data help this forum even if we were both interested in discussing it. The power of irrationality requires multiple invested users to acknowledge it in order for two side to understand what irrationality's notability is about.
It's just a context people are not ready to hear as a general conversation and it's not like I have any reference except for my experiences as a human being. I've experienced irrational data that can be resurrectors of dead data and I've experienced the opposite. The trick is to communicate with people for as long a period before they say or express "Duh!" or "you are intentionally adding verbosity and turning my own wording against me by making it obtuse."
As a notable topic for this thread, it's why I based the personal productivity system that I'm writing but it has no room for web clipping software that isn't my own or your own.
Web clipping is all about the irrational and the rational of
the developer. not us
and how they create a process to open and insert the irrational and the rational of their potential and current customers. When they don't provide this structure, even when we just talk we're not getting anywhere until we each can provide an equally skilled prototype that acts differently and gets different receptions...and then
we discuss again and then prototest again regardless if we're just interested in discussing a hypothetical. Any legitimate dead data for the brain discussion is simply a socratic-like assumption against assumption way of discussion.
And as I said elsewhere, finding data after months is greatly helped by tree organization, in which data has got some "attributed position", from a visual pov. Trees are so much more practical than relational db's only are, for non-standardized data. Just have 50,000 items in an UR db, and then imagine the tree was missing but you had to exclusively rely upon the prog's (very good) search function.
Sorry, you won't get any agreement from me in this subject.
I know where you're getting at but it does not scale well to someone who constantly loses backups of his data or forgets to import backup of his data when he is overwhelmed.
I do suspect that your relational db does not involve the relational db known as the brain and so that might create the confusion. I will say however that if you were demanding me to be more concise rather than to be more clear, I would have simply written I don't agree but I don't disagree. I use Workflowy for the same mechanical purpose but I don't solely nor heavily rely on Workflowy as my system.
All the worse then that there'll be never a REALLY good pim, i.e. that UR and all its competitors will remain with their innumerable faults and missings and flaws. And don't count on Neville to change this - I'd be the happiest person alive if that happened, but Neville won't do it, it's as simple as that.
I disagree. Maybe to us, there won't be but to many, they don't realize it but when writers praise Scrivener...they are praising it as a REALLY good pim instead of a word processor or any other label based on what they like. I would assume the same goes for Notemap and lawyers.
It's that paradox. A really good PIM is not really a PIM anymore.
EDIT : It just occured to me that I never tried to download web pages into a pim, but when you do, you will probably never get them out and into another pim, so even when downloading them, having them in a special format or special application, then just linking to them, seems to be preferable independently of the number you tend to download... And that would be .mht for just some pages, in my case, or WebResearch for pages in numbers, in your case - that'd be my advice at least if you cannot leave this web page collecting habit behind you. Stay flexible. Don't join the crowd "I've got some data within this prog and that I otherwise don't touch anymore" - I read lots of such admissions, and it's evident these people did something wrong, at some point.
Yup, yup and yup.
It's not just PIM, it's all software ESPECIALLY if you're not a coder and can troubleshoot or develop a comparable software. It's just a question of when do we realize it for our needs.
When does it set in and when does it set out.
For an example of setting out, if I mentioned the gamification of information, can a software dev or software conceptualist move away from this
or have they even considered it before?
It's just a never-ending quicksand until a person realizes what he realizes or realizes that he has realized enough and will do great work rather than just do work from that point forward.