topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Wednesday November 5, 2025, 4:19 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dormouse [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79next
1
when it comes to graphic editing, it gets tricky. What's the Linux alternative to Adobe and Affinity tools? GIMP? Inkscape? Seen it, laughed, deleted it.

...

Linux, the BSDs and other free systems are simply unsuitable for many people as an alternative to Windows and macOS. Sure: there's Wine. So people install Linux to "get away from Microsoft", and then need a Windows simulator for most of the software tools they want to use in everyday life. That would be too daft for me.

By the way: Third-party file management tools on Windows exist, including (but not limited to) KDE Dolphin, praised by some as a "Linux killer application", ironically. Just saying.

Agree completely. Been there, done that too often.
And haven't used anything except third part file management tools for a very very long time.

And, despite disliking Apple even more than MS, I now have a Mac 4 Mini on my list should I ever need to use a Mac program regularly.

PS I too like Softmaker Office. But in practice I always use actual Word because it's better (though I appreciate that most users will never need that 'better' or even be aware it exists).

2
Boris pocketed the map and cleared the surrounding debris, piling models, paper, tools and unused materials on top of each other. ‘This way I know where everything is,’ he declared.
(Rotherweird by Andrew Caldecott)

Ultimately this is the purpose of a substantive whiteboard app - a collection of stuff for a project that can be shuffled and rearranged and added to where the mind can be relied on to know where everything is and visual arrangements prompt new thoughts. I have vacillated about what to say about my experience with Noteey and Milanote. My usage is infrequent. Both have aspects I like; both have aspects I don't; their workflows and use cases are surprisingly different. My thoughts haven't crystalised. I tried Milanote because it was recommended to me by a writer, Noteey because I had come across it. Proper testing requires a degree of commitment, but when Milanote was my only option I found the workflow in getting going on a new project was so cumbersome, that it simply made it impossible (for me; might not be the case for everyone). I know that I ought to look at Miro and Mural too; they also, I believe, are web apps.

I like the basic structure of Noteey. It's local. It has a card library, like Lattics and Heptabase, but not everything is a card. I'm not quite sure where it's going - there seems to be user pressure for adding PKM features. And I'm aware that Lattics will add a whiteboard sometime which might be sufficient for me. But there's also a big advantage sometimes in just adding stuff from the web, and Noteey isn't good at that. But I have discovered that pasting a web url to a whiteboard opens a direct pane and I can login. So I can add Milanote to a Noteey whiteboard! Presumably I can do that with Miro and Mural too, and they all have free accounts. I'll see where that takes me.



3
Whiteboards

I mentioned in the Lattics thread, that I've been looking at using Milanote for brainstorming and thinking through a project. (Lattics has no whiteboard right now; what it has is much better for structured thinking through, but not ideal for me personally for brainstorming.)

I've always been aware that whiteboards suit me. I played with using OneNote; I worked with the Scrivener corkboard without ever finding it truly useful. I used the Canvas in Obsidian quite a lot, but it never quite had the features I ideally wanted.

Several years ago I subscribed for an annual licence for both Heptabase and Scrintal. I liked the description of Scrintal but it seemed to have been launched and sold without having full functionality and without even having the team of developers in place - and once they were appointed, the program seemed to gradually shift direction. Whereas Heptabase worked, was developing well and reasonably functional and intuitive to use, even if it wasn't quite what I had been hoping for. Both were supposed to be PKM note apps with notes on whiteboards, suitable for researchers, students etc. Scrintal rebranded as 'Playground for the Mind'. Hmm.

I never did use Scrintal much and decided not to take up the highly discounted offer of a lifetime subscription. I simply didn't believe that it would ever do what I needed, and wasn't that confident in it lasting long once it ran out of VC money. I notice that it closed its Slack community a few months ago.
Heptabase had a bigger user base, was developing faster and claimed that its revenues were higher than its costs. I stopped using it, and didn't renew my subscription, because it didn't have useful export functions (I particularly need Word formats) which meant that my notes had an awkward path to being used in my writing. It started to say that's its purpose was to support learning and currently describes itself as helping to make sense of your notes. Not the niche for me, but it has developed massively since I stopped using it.

Eventually I found Lattics which does what I need. But brainstorming, making sense  works best for me on a whiteboard. The Heptabase/Scrintal whiteboards were never actually good for that either being so heavily based around the actual notes; neither was a creative whiteboard.

So when I needed that whiteboard, I looked around: quickly discounted all the programs I had and turned to Milanote. I have used it before, but not often. Its functionality is entirely confined to being a creative whiteboard. It's a web app, with all the advantages and disadvantages of being a web app. It's quite long established and polished. Many users, good support, frequently used for creative collaboration by teams, has mobile apps. And actually has a very limited feature set - but it has all the features needed and the limitation means that it's quite approachable and easy to get into. I can certainly do what I need in it.
But ..

One nice feature is web clipping which makes the clips available as notes. Very fast and easy workflow - well, it is nice when it works/ But my experience is that it works sometimes, and other times it takes hours, and some times it doesn't work at all: the clips just disappear into a black hole - presumably they were never actually clipped to anywhere meaningful. Copy and paste is more reliable. And there are issues arising from it being a PWA program (somehow I always hit glitches with those); the 'desktop app' is in reality a browser window. And, as such, impacted by all the active extensions in the browser. I always use dark mode and have extensions that force web content into a dark mode. Unfortunately these cause glare in the document menu; that resolves if I turn the extension off, but then the side panels can glare. Seems to be a bit more amenable in Edge than Chrome. I can work around it. If I have to.

But I decided to look harder at whether there were other options. Noticed that Affine has improved. And then came across Noteey. It's local and doesn't even require signing in for the nearly fully featured free version; as with Diarium and Lattics it can be synced by using a cloud drive; I'm very comfortable with this, even if it means that taking info from the web is harder work. But no mobile version (apparently coming in the quarter before or after Christmas).

I've seen it criticised as being a clone of Heptabase, but it certainly isn't that. It doesn't have the PKM features of Heptabase, and does have a multiplicity of whiteboard features that Heptabase doesn't have. It has notes, but the notes aren't the central feature. I actually see many design similarities to Lattics.
It's developing fast, but the UI needs polish and apparently there are many little bugs being actively eradicated. It's also a very complex program; nowhere near as easy or approachable as Milanote. Tagging is weak. But the pricing is comparatively very good: before March it was $49 for a Lifetime Pro licence. That has since doubled - discounts seem frequent though - but this is still cheaper than an annual licence for Milanote. And, like Milanote, the free version is good for quite a lot of work. My first impressions are positive and it seems to tick all my required creative whiteboard boxes.

I think I'll run them both for now. and see which takes best; and which does the job I need to do now - I don't want that doing to be bogged down on a learning curve. I'll shift anything used for reference to Noteey in an attempt to extend my stay in Milanote's free tier. I don't know how many of Noteey's features I will ever use, but I'm pretty sure that the Lattics whiteboard, when it comes, will be much simpler. Maybe simpler will be enough, maybe it will be better; but using Noteey now will put me in a better position to judge.

4
Further Update on Proton/Standard Notes/Notesnook

I'm not sure that I will ever subscribe to Standard Notes. If I was going to use it, I'd want the rich text capability that's only available in the paid version; but when I read the Discord the whole thing seems frozen and not developing despite the existence of longstanding bugs. The developers have been working on the Documents feature in Proton Drive. I'll continue waiting for Proton Black Friday.

Notesnook continues to develop. It remains unintuitive and has multiple features and UI is often awkward. But it works. But feels like overkill since I will never use it for all my notes, which afaics is what most users want it for. I don't need high security for the vast majority of my notes; it would be a pleasant addon to a program that already did everything well, but I'm not going to sacrifice usability for it. And, when it comes to it, Lattics is pretty secure being entirely local with syncing through one of my cloud drives.

My best solution may not be a notes app at all. I have used Diarium for many years. It has some pretty nice functions and integrations that I do use. Notes can be tagged, and it works with markdown. Export is excellent. And a few months ago it tweaked its encryption system and is now as secure as any of the secure notes apps. I won't have enough secure notes to require a fully fledged PKM system to manage them.

5
It happens every time! Whenever I start a new project, or have to completely rethink a WIP, I become intensely frustrated and irritated with my software. I'm the common factor so the most parsimonious explanation is that I'm the problem - but I can' just swap my brain out, so I have to look elsewhere. And when it comes to it, I'm sure this is a common issue.

I wrote a whole post (https://www.donation....msg455741#msg455741) a few months ago on how Lattics can work for new projects, so why the problem now? All I know for sure is that I don't want to use it. Why? What's going to work better?
Each project is different. The mental states required are different. Writing is ideally a zen-like flow, highly focused. Working through some problems is high focus, but calculating and slightly more open. But for some new projects and rethinks that isn't enough. The mind has to be wide open to all thoughts until the solution coalesces. And becomes highly sensitive to mental boxes that don't fit. Which is where I am. So let me look at some other programs, each of which works sometimes.

Mindomo is a more open and comprehensively featured mindmap than the one in Lattics. Can be used as outliner. But it's still a mindmap - requires that a project can be built out from a core (or multiple interacting cores). My ideas aren't that far developed.

WorkFlowy can be brilliantly efficient and effective for text-based plotting through a MSS. Outlining is fast and easy to see. Switching to kanban view gives a more visual overview and facilitates moving bits around to fit. But really only works when you already have a coherent idea.

Which regretfully brings me to Milanote. Infinite whiteboards really work for me but they all have their weaknesses; Milanote is an organised whiteboard and templates - even has many of its own writing-oriented templates. I have a love begrudging it's okay/hate relationship with Milanote. It only really does one thing. It's expensive (more than five times as expensive as Lattics); it's often slow; it's clunky. It has no internal links, no tagging. It's internet dependent. It's just a moderately glorified pinboard (often likened to pinterest). Compared to Workflowy's kanban, the inefficiency of its columns is distressing. Theoretically you can do many of the same things in OneNote, but it never feels the same.

Milanote is fine to write in, it's flexible, and has decent colours. And a web clipper. Differentiates notes and documents; has comments; and collaboration. If you are exceptionally disciplined and have a very small project (or only use a few elements), you might be able to get away with the free account (and can have multiple projects by having multiple accounts). But that's too restrictive for me. Since it's used in only one phase, it's also possible to reduce price by going monthly and then not renewing; the data already there is preserved and editable; that might work.

Oh well.
Hello again Mila ...

6
^ I'm unclear in your second paragraph  -- do you mean the "efficient" and busy ones are distracting?

Obsidian doesn't.

Doesn't distract?

Convoluted language. I meant the ability not to distract.
Obsidian has the ability to focus (ie see only the note content), but includes multiple distractions because of the numerous options and settings. Temptation is always present, even when it's out of sight.

Tangent has fewer options and therefore fewer temptations. It's more prescriptive and may not do what you need, but enables zen-like focus.
My measuring tool is purely my subjective experience, and this 'logical explanation' is purely my best attempt to make sense of that experience.

7
I ought to mention, because I haven't before, that I now experience a feeling of peace and focus when I enter Lattics.

It's something I have occasionally experienced with programs once they have become familiar; but not often. Some programs are designed to be efficient or busy. Most distract or demand some sort of attention. Tangent has it; Obsidian doesn't. Glitches or a need to use something else always interrupt, which became an issue for me with Tangent.

8
user guide content has been greatly updated
-Lattics

And has Coming Soon sections - AI assistant, Version management, Web App, mobile apps (iOS, Android, Harmony), OCR, PDF translation, image annotation and hand drawing, audio and video subtitle transcription, Mermaid, QMD + Quarto, slide show, document directory + tag visualisation (idk what this is).

I am very much looking forward to version management.

For anyone interested, here's the web page

9
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 18, 2025, 06:11 AM »
Genealogy/Research/Deep Search workflows in Vivaldi

This is simply a description of the workflow I have settled on, for now, using Vivaldi; with some comparison to practical Horse workflows.
It only applies to deep searches where there's a deep persisted investigation into tightly defined questions. It could work for broader topics, but the advantages of the approach would be fewer.

  • I set the right pane to notes and start a note defining the question/topic; add a date/time stamp when I start (a date/time stamp is my most used shortcut; I use them for UIDs as well as recording precise times).
  • I will also put in a link to a file folder that I will use to save any media that I decide to keep arising from this search.
  • Within the Genealogy workspace, I start searching using a tab stack. Using Shift-click to open links, so they always open in new tabs.
  • Add comments and thoughts to the note whenever needed
  • Rename tabs by adding emojis for success and partial success
  • When I finish the session, add another date/time stamp (this means that it is easy to locate in the history all the searches made in the session)
  • Copy the history links for the session into the note (this isn't strictly necessary as it's easy to locate them in future given the time stamps - but it's also quite easy to do, and it gives an identical note to the one I originally tried to target in Horse)
  • Continue as above in further sessions
  • When I discontinue the search, add a concluding summary to the note with a copy of all the tabs in the tab stack, which can then be closed.

Vivaldi notes can be put into folders which nest, so it's very simple to organise them while they are in active use.
The target is to add all the notes to PKM notes programs once the active searching has stopped because of the linking, more sophisticated searches etc. Folders are just too limited.
I assume that AI would be able to parse the saved history into xls format which would simplify visual scanning.
Interestingly (?) I keep the list of research questions in a Workflowy outline. Not because it's hierarchical - it's not - but because it's so compressible and easy to play with. I tried outlines in other programs, but they never worked so well and Workflowy has the advantage of being switchable into kanban view should I ever need it.

Similar workflows in Horse
Horse can't give the same level of control over the final note; it says there's no history (so deleted pages will be gone forever), and there's no easy way to cut and paste quotes from a page into a note. You can achieve control of the sequence of entries by adding many notes into the web page sequence (but that's very high friction) OR you can use one note for each search question (lower friction, but no control of note sequence). tbh I suspect that using a separate note program using different windows would be better.

10
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 12, 2025, 07:16 PM »
The problem with folders (and hierarchies and sequences such as outlines)

The problem with folders is well illustrated in family history. It is that the smallest, most reduced, objects - written records, DNA, artefacts, images, etc - contain multiple points of data. Hierarchies or sequences can be imposed on them, but that's always an imposition. Each point of data will have it's own relationships and links. For instance, a marriage certificate will contain many names, a date and location; a note on that certificate could link to notes containing any of those; could be tagged by religion or county or the family you are interested in. A note on the Rosetta stone might link to everyone who tried to translate it. Thinking about these is constrained if they have to be put into a hierarchy. Which means that a hierarchical system such as Vivaldi folders or Horse outlines is problematic when that thinking is the point of the exercise.

(The classic family history organisation of items being attached to people in a family tree is just as problematic.)
The implication is that such notes need to be in a program that contains typical PKM features such as links, tags etc.

But the hierarchical or sequential record is exceptionally useful for recording the process of searching and sifting for relevant items. Which makes it easy to return and repeat or extend the process. But that process is personal and conceptual, not quite a physical actuality. Suggesting that the optimum workflow is developing search targets in PKM app, searching using a note-taking browser that records structured search sequences (Vivaldi doing this better than Horse) and saving that record into the PKM app.

11
The outcome of my Horse ride was that I switched to Vivaldi as my research browser. I've used it on and off for a long time, and I've tweaked my settings to give me the best approximation of trails. The times I switch away are usually because I hit problems with one or two sites or that I get irritated by some aspect of its default behaviour (and tweaking its settings is always a deep dive).

But given my frequent focus on note-taking, why wasn't its notes feature a stronger draw before?
A question I needed to ponder.

I think there were a number of factors.
  • Vivaldi is a browser with notes; it makes no attempt to incorporate PKM features - which means it can be a starting place for notes but not the final home. And there are many ways of taking notes on websites.
  • The organisation it does have is with folders, which don't map on to my preferred system.
  • There's no automatic link between the website and note; a link can be put into the note, but that's true for any system.
  • Vivaldi notes aren't especially good for annotating a website; my interest is often in making a few comments rather than developing a complete note.
  • The one program advantage relies on a screen large enough to accommodate both site and note.
  • I hadn't thought of the trails idea for deep, iterative research..
  • The advantage of taking the notes in Vivaldi, doesn't really extend beyond that particular methodology; it's perfectly okay for other notes, but no better than many other methods.
  • And it's browser dependent, which means there would have been a different workflow depending on which browser I was using at the time.



12
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 09, 2025, 04:51 PM »
I appreciate that an AI oriented browser might be able to do the lot. But I'm extra hesitant to trust the whole process to a newly developed program with unknown (possible) pitfalls.

Yesterday, as is my wont on a Sunday, I watched a selection of antiquarian ambles https://one of which was interrupted by a rant about AI. It's getting everywhere.  :mad:

The story was that a place had been ascribed a name in the nineteenth century (which was essentially made up) but since disproved by academics but has recently been resuscitated on the internet courtesy of AI "reading" old books and being unable to tell true from false.

Highlighting my concerns about its use in family history where everything depends on double and triple checking and weighing probabilities. Concerns only increased by sites AI-driven suggestions - over the weekend, I was directed to a newspaper cutting supposedly possibly about the death of an ancestor; interesting but this death was years before the many records showing him alive.

And, more egregiously, there was this
AI said something had been done, when it hadn't. Challenged, it produced a transcript. Further challenged, it denied making it up. Before eventually confessing and promising never to do it again. Crocodile tears, like a child wanting to avoid heavier punishment but not really understanding they have done wrong.

I assume it's programmed to believe that what it has said is true. And, if it's true, then there must be a source. And, if all the sources are very similar, then this particular source must be like this. I see no sign that the programmers have ever read anything about the philosophy of science (tbf most scientists show no sign of it either).

13
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 03, 2025, 07:20 AM »
tbf the trails idea is good, and clinking a link as a subpage is fast and effective. Useful for some types of research.

In rests between thinking about, and setting up, my Vivaldi workflows - and reading about AI - I've look at various tree style browser solutions, and they appear to lack clarity of purpose and effective default behaviours. They don't seem adequate alternatives.

Having notes in the tree is also a very good idea - and not one I've come across  elsewhere. But the default behaviours are poor.

Which means that it's a system that might work well for those who want to keep all their info in the browser, but not for those that want to work with the notes.
And more a one-trick pony than a packhorse. And none of the expected comforts of a saddle horse either.

It's already apparent that for me Vivaldi is far faster and has fewer frictions for doing this type of research. This is partly because of the excellent inbuilt note options, and partly because of the availability of all my usual extensions. And a password manager that works. And it's not costing me an annual $60 $80.

14
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 03, 2025, 06:48 AM »
It confirmed that the price was $60 ... I clicked the talk to a person button and emailed. There has been no response.

I finally received a response by email:
"I have fixed the bug on the homepage, it should now correctly display either $80 or £60, not “$60”. "
The € price has been upped to €70.

Presumably this will help address this issue mentioned on their marketing page:
"Conversion Rate
The percentage of trial users who pay up. We're running at a ridiculous 25% versus the 10% industry standard—meaning we're still undercharging even after all our price experiments.
"

idk if they're going to let all the sites quoting $60 know

15
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: June 01, 2025, 08:31 AM »
Sorry for ranting on and on about this.

Please, please continue.

I am aware that I need to move in that direction with this. Not that I will move quickly.

When I was a student, I saw that the best understanding came from knowing all the details from the ground up, and that thinking consequently became superfast. I always worked to understand my data and processed through the underlying equations and maths before using formulae. I always distrusted blackbox packages. Still amazes me that Stats courses at uni concentrate on formulae, interpretations and packages with minimal effort given to teaching data types or shapes; afaics the most common failures irl come from a failure to understand the basic data. I suppose now they're moving(ed?) to AI.

Which is fair enough. Understanding and appreciating the basics isn't the same thing as wanting to do them manually every single time.

you already did a lot of legwork and have the data.

Legwork 'yes'; have the data 'no'; at least not in family history. But I will be recreating it; fairly straightforward because I do have all the finish points and remember the routes and already knew I needed to do that.

You can run a (smaller) local AI/LLM easily enough.
...
you will be very pleasantly surprised how well those small models perform, when you can let it go loose with your own proper data. And those will not rob you blind with subscription fees, token consumption limitations and possible overcharge fees.

Is local best for this? I know it's very personal data, but it's not private - it's virtually all derived from public databases after all.
Is the downside of the online models mostly to do with cost? In which case, I'd need to compare it with the cost of local. Without being slowed.

And that is fast enough for adept readers. Maybe not for speed readers, but given the state of today, there aren't that many persons anymore that have and/or use that skill.

I suspect I'm fast; idk about speed reader. Usually read 10+ books a week, frequently +++, as well as everything else.

Depending on your GPU hardware. Or lack thereof.

Lack entirely; not being a game player. And even shifted to basic level PCs in recent years because I don't (didn't) need power for anything. I really like my little Geecom mini.


you will see that even these smaller local LLM's are pretty good for helping you out finding what you need, collect this data and "feed" that into an external genealogy database.

You could even find out which research paths were a dead end, or maybe less of a dead end than envisioned, with a few simple prompts. Or tell the AI/LLM that those paths were already marked as a dead end, so not to be investigated (in an much more automated) way.

And that would definitely be good.

token consumption limitations and possible overcharge fees.
...
'LM Studio" (GUI tool for Windows, Linux and Mac) and/or "Msty" (GUI tool for Windows, Linux and Mac) or even "Ollama" (PowerShell/terminal-based text tool for Windows, Linux and Mac). ... LLM web-interfaces (such as 'Open-WebUI') to these tools.
...
LLM model search function build-in. Where I discovered model 'ui-tars-1.5-7b', which is surprisingly sound of logic (without giving it a system prompt to tweak it) given it's size. ... 4 to 5 tokens per second on a desktop with a 10th generation Intel i3 CPU (5 years old by now), no GPU of any kind, a small and simple 2,5" SATA SSD drive and 16 GByte of 3200 MHz RAM.
...
Just need to figure out the RAG solution for your collected data. Tools like 'Rlama' and 'LlamaIndex'

There's a whole new language for me to learn, as well as the content, as well as how to apply it.

--

My current plan is:
  • Gather the data. Organising and reorganising the searches in the browser.
  • Saving each organised sequence (aka "trail") into markdown - both Lattics and Tangent/Obsidian.
  • Using something else to help me visualise it and help me go forward. Might be some sort of data oriented PKM app, or AI or something else.
I appreciate that an AI oriented browser might be able to do the lot. But I'm extra hesitant to trust the whole process to a newly developed program with unknown (possible) pitfalls.



16
I've just experienced my first little glitch when using Lattics. I was just writing a response to Shades when the text disappeared. ctrl-z zilch. I assume that something interrupted its autosave. No settings I can tweak. tbf I've experienced more glitches with Obsidian, Tangent etc. Not recently with Word, and not with Keep.

17
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Horse Browser Review
« on: May 31, 2025, 05:37 PM »
Perhaps you should take a look at Strawberry browser. Is on invite-basis only at the moment, not free either, because of AI, but the user interface appears to be well suited for (automating) research in combination with AI. Screenshots of the UI you can find here, as well as a complete description, a FAQ, some example animated Gif's, etc.

Thanks. I'll take a look; I'm certainly going to be paying more attention to browsers generally.

doesn't disappoint in the same way.

It may not seem like it, but I'm still very pleased about Horse. I'll admit that I now question whether the wonderful workflow I envisaged was somehow my own invention, but at the very least it was inspired by Horse. It should have been obvious - it was obvious! - but it had never occurred to me before.

Every now and then an interest in family history and genealogy takes hold of me. Because of the big gaps, I cannot remember the precise details of the work I have done or not done - especially failed searches. I know I should make detailed records, but I only ever do it incompletely, sometimes, and I'm unlikely to do better because it is a significant amount of drudgery for the remote prospect of a possible payoff in the distant future. This mostly automates the whole thing.

Off the top of my head, I recognise three types of search/research that seem to crop up in all domains.
  • One is planned and systematic. Defined data gathering, statistical analysis, maths. What most people think of as typical science, though science uses all these types.
  • The second is like a wood sculptor beachcombing for driftwood with potential. Probably one of the most common web activities. Despite being sometimes vilified as mindless collection, the items are often chosen as potential triggers for the imagination.
  • And the third is like the hunt for Bigfoot; you know it's there, you're sure it's there, it's just very, very hard to find and most trails lead nowhere. And you just need a bigger collider.
And it's only the third type that I imagined Horse helping with. Not that it matters. Now that I have the idea, the Vivaldi method will work perfectly well enough.

Family history research is a funny beast. Most of the data you work with is in archives, which constantly acquire new data. So search results may change over time. And sometimes the site will only cough up the data if you search x way rather than y way because search algorithms can be glitchy. The data is often mistranscribed and the original respondents were often misheard, or had limited knowledge, or downright lied. Does this record belong to that person?; does that person, or that record, truly belong in your family tree? Nothing is certain. Everything you 'learn' should have a probability estimate, but all you can do is write it down and keep some type of probability in your mind. You increase probabilities by triangulation. Preferably supported by copies of actual written records and not just transcriptions or someone else's assumptions. You constantly look for stuff to extend, but more often you look for supporting evidence, and even more often disconfirming evidence. A disappointing but useful outcome.

So covering old ground is the norm. And remembering the sites or the precise search terms is hard, but writing down every slight change in location or date range is tedious beyond belief. It had never occurred to me to store that information in a browser. Partly because the searching can seem haphazard - I tire of not finding Gobble Grimstone in Derby, exhaust my supply of variants, Gimstone, Gimston, Gimson, Jemson; and switch to Abel Turkey (probably Tukey oc) in Nottingham; and round and round in circles. Even worse I do find them, but with records that show they're not one of my ancestors and I have to start again. Partly because tabs always seemed haphazard themselves and using multiple browsers didn't help because I never saw them as central to my workflows. Seeing tabs as an outline was a real eye opener; I can shuffle and rename, even use emojis. Reorganise in the browser. And the power is amplified by moving the searches into a PKM notes app.

I appreciate the lure of AI in all of this; genealogy sites are using it directly in a limited way. But I'm also very wary. The data is already probabilistic. AI's internal logic must function around probabilities. I fear a tendency to be overly certain or even a willingness to invent a record that it has decided must exist. Even inventing an image of a Dog Latin birth register from an Irish parish wouldn't be beyond it. And I would have no way of weighing the AI's probabilities.

PS That was interesting. I looked at the Strawberry link. I'd never quite realised that Lattics would just open URLs in one of its own windows.

18
Mini-Reviews by Members / Horse Browser Review
« on: May 30, 2025, 09:29 AM »
What is Horse Browser?

"The internet browser that's designed for research. Organise notes and websites into projects, have all your work in one place, and get more done."
"Browse the internet with a simple sidebar and organise all your pages, tasks and projects into 'Trails®'. Trails® are nested groups of pages that capture the natural flow of your internet travels.
Yes, that means no more tabs, bookmarks or history.
Unfold, organise, name and add emojis to simple, meditative Trails® that fold away in a click."
"the browser built for professionals who demand focus and efficiency"


I use many browsers, and usually three or four of them are open. I have always found them pretty poor for focused research, so the premise made sense to me. I had already decided to set aside one browser specifically and it was almost easier to switch to something new. The key features required for research are maximising focus and keeping detailed records; most browsers enhance access to distractions and make record keeping effortful.

How does Horse work?

The major innovation in Horse is a vertical outline instead of tabs (horizontal or vertical). This is genuinely helpful. Outlines allow folding. The search process is easily visible through the trails and subtrails in a way that will already be familiar. The width of the left outline pane can be moved so that the details of each page can be read quickly, making it easy to leap back in even after being away for a few weeks. Pages can be renamed and moved around the outline.

Plaintext notes can be placed at any point in the outline to form a record of comments and conclusions.

And any point in the outline (with children) can be exported into a markdown outline (the notes are pure text anyway, but the web pages are exported in markdown format) so that there is a full record of the search process and conclusions.

Three extensions are incorporated - Ghostery, Dark Reader and Saddlepack (Horse's own password manager). Ghostery and Dark Reader work well and enhance focus. Saddlepack stores passwords but doesn't autofill; there's an intention to enable external password manager extensions, though I don't know if that would enable all Chromium extensions. Since most of the sites I need for research require accounts and logons, this is a major friction for me.

Notes Friction

There are many keyboard shortcuts for trails and web pages: you can expand, shrink, go up, down, left, right, in, out and do the hokey cokey (pokey in US). And admittedly the shortcuts can be complex 4 key combos; but you can edit the keys - though I've never persuaded the changes to save.

But there are no shortcuts for notes. None. At all. The move keys work (at least for move left and move right), but to create a new note you have to go to the tiny icon at the top of the left pane and click on it; this creates a new note at the bottom, which you can then move into position (with mouse being easiest). To directly create a new note as a subnote (the most frequent need), you need to click on the tiny hamburger on the current tab and then select New Note from the menu.

These are not UI design choices by someone who uses notes extensively. Most people do their browsing using their mouse predominantly; virtually all users write notes using their keyboard.

Pricing

The price is widely advertised as $60 annual subscription. In the past it has had lifetime subscriptions, and higher and lower prices (usually lower); changes appear unusually often.

When I looked at my own receipt, I noted that I had been charged £60 (as compared to an expected £45 to reflect the current exchange rate). Looking through their FAQs I noted a reference to a price of €60, so I suspect that's what many users in Europe will be charged.

Customer Support

There's the Horse Discord and emails to Support.

When I enquired about support for keyboard shortcuts for notes, I was directed to the list of keyboard shortcuts. When I pointed out that there was nothing for notes, my access to the Discord was removed. I had wondered why it was such an empty discord compared to many. That wasn't a great response, but oh well; Lattics has a long abandoned Discord and there's still active support through the app.

I emailed support about my overcharging. Firstly requesting a refund of the amount overcharged and then another suggesting a four month licence extension as an alternative (I thought that might be simpler for them). I received two email replies from their AI support bot. As is the way with AI, it invented it's own question and then answered that. It confirmed that the price was $60; it understood my concern about the pricing difference and pointed towards the full refund in the first thirty day option; "Unfortunately, our sources don't specifically address extending subscription end dates as an alternative to refunds"; it asked whether that helped or whether I wanted to talk to a person. I clicked the talk to a person button and emailed. There has been no response.

My personal experience has been of customer evasion rather than customer support.

So, where next?

My little trip with Horse highlighted the value of a full record of my research journeys. It's helpful to know what I'm looking for and what strategies I have pursued. Of particular value is being able to revisit all the dead-ends and frustrated searches because they are the ones I am likely to want to return to when I have fresh ideas about what else I can do. Horse is actually not very good for this - it's lists of places visited rather than anything else.

I thought of Edge: I recalled mentions of it being good for vertical tabs and having notes; but I wasn't enthused. It's a long time since I used Opera. But I knew that Notes were quite a big feature in Vivaldi.

Horse has an article of the best browsers for research. Critiques Vivaldi - "Known as the most customisable browser out there, Vivaldi can be fine-tuned to suit you. That said, customisation takes time and can also end up in a distracted user experience"; "Free… But, again, there’s no free lunch here… While Vivaldi doesn’t track its users or sell data to the same extent as some other browsers, it does earn revenue through search engine and bookmark partnerships". My own experience of Vivaldi is that I pay no attention to the bazillion features that don't interest me; it's not entirely positive, as I've had issues with some webpages, but it floats in and out of being my most used browser.

So I determined to set it up specifically for research - I will suffer no loss of focus because I'm not using it that much on my desktop right now.

Vivaldi

Vivaldi has Workspaces; kin to Horse's Areas and folders. It has two level tab stacks. Stuff can be moved around. Usable. Adequate. But not as flexible or as visually descriptive as Horse's outline.

But the notes are infinitely better. When you have the notes panel open, you can write you note while still on a web page; you can cut and paste (or select and grab) between the two. A keyboard shortcut opens  notes in the main pane where a note can be written or edited in markdown rich text.
At this point, there are options. You can move notes into the tab stack; or you can copy the web pages into a note. For me, it's smoothest to write the note as I go along and copy pages into them; my heavyweight work is in my PKM notes app so the note was always my ultimate destination. And when I finish, I copy the history in too, so that I have a blow by blow record of my journey.

Vivaldi also has multiple navigation options.

And extensions. So I can use my password manager to login to all the sites I use for research. And upload articles to Readwise and my citation managers. Etc. Friction is minimised.

I wouldn't claim that Vivaldi is the best solution, even for my own work; idk. But I can definitively say that it is a far better solution for me than Horse, and Horse is unlikely to ever catch up.

Conclusions
Horse has a very neat idea but its potential is unrealised if only from the point of view of my own needs. Fundamentally, it's good for those who only want a curated and organised search history and record, with occasional incorporated notes; especially when they prefer to keep it all stored long-term in the browser.

It feels like a personal hobby project where substantial effort has been expended on monetising and marketing. The most recent incarnation of the website contains multiple messages that come over as empty AI garbage.

I came across  (this thread on Reddit).
"there's some dude and a gang of bots astroturfing this sub about "horse browser" which looks just like some typical chromium garbage. They're definitely astroturfing, and doing a really spray and pray approach, because they commented on a [4 month old post of mine](https://www.reddit.c...queeze_all_features/) on this sub with barely any comments, and magically 20 minutes later, that comment has 10 upvotes, and would you look at that, it's the top comment when you click on the post. I think there's some chatgpt shit going on because just look at the messages:"
"I'm the sole person behind Horse Browser, I want to clarify that this spam was not my doing but the result of an overly enthusiastic affiliate. I've just addressed this issue directly with them"
'Thanks. Removed some of the comments. If the account keeps it up, it will be banned'

Horse marketing


Unfortunately it doesn't feel as if the same effort has been expended on meeting - or even understanding - the needs of its customers. The investment of a heavy research user into a process and workflow is substantial, certainly greater than the price of an app, and there's a need for longevity and professionalism in the tools used. I have no confidence of either with Horse.

Final Conclusion

Obviously I requested a refund.
This message came up on the Stripe refund page "we would appreciate it if you consider canceling without requesting a refund; that way we can keep working on improving Horse Browser for when you come back later." I ignored it.


19
I've just come across a browser designed for research, that solves my biggest problems in some areas and will be using it forthwith.

It's relatively new, still immature, has limited features and some points of friction; and isn't cheap ($60 a year atm). No tabs. What it does have is "trails" showing all the websites and notes made in lines of research; these can be exported to markdown (and later reimported if wanted). The searched sites can be opened from the links in notes programs that understand markdown.

It's particularly useful for recording unsuccessful searches since they tend to be left out during normal note-taking and it's easy to find yourself going in circles over ground you have covered before (you=me). This browser solves that problem. It doesn't have many other features, but those it does have are very useful (dark reader, ad blocking, focus mode); it's very comfortable to work in.

I'd say that it's particularly suitable for research where you try multiple searches trying to answer one question (such as genealogy/shopping research etc) but mightn't be particularly advantageous if you are doing wide searches for many different things. It's also more effective if you are already using a notes program that understands markdown links.

https://gethorse.com/

 https://www.youtube..../watch?v=7gvxrieLvII

I've written A review of my experience with Horse. Suffice it to say, that it didn't go according to plan.

20
So the latest update came out yesterday - less than two weeks since the previous one. That feels fairly typical. Maybe it's useful to give an idea of typical updates:

[Editor] The performance of the editor has been GREATLY improved, hundreds of thousands of words can be input smoothly without any lag.
[Project Outline] Supports automatic numbering and automatic sort out
[Card Library] Supports displaying cards of all sub-tags under a tag.
[Math Equation] In the LaTex syntax mode of the mathematical equation editor, it supports prompts and automatic completion of LaTex syntax.
[Shortcut Keys] During editing, Cmd/Ctrl + Up/Down can quickly locate the top or bottom of the document, and double-clicking the top and bottom of the editor can also quickly locate it.
[Optimize] Improved data backup and restore backup logic.
[Optimize] Improved the reliability of data storage.
[Fixed] Solved the problems of parsing ChatGPT listed number, focus mode, menu display, screenshot saving, code block border display, etc.
That's quite a few things updated - again fairly typical.

I'm a little surprised at the improvement in editor speed - it's never felt at all slow to me. Maybe they were responding to a request from users trying to paste in a books worth of text at a time. Most of these look like user requests. I'd noticed the sub-tag issue myself though I wasn't bothered enough to ask for a change.

21
I sometimes feel that I have only scratched 10% of Lattics' functions. Partly because of the way I'm using it at the moment (oriented to particular writing projects and using it as a writing program rather than as a research or notes program), and partly because I've been sticking to familiar workflows.

Naturally I took a look at the new filter features; I used the extended pane. Then switched from card view to mindmap view: the extended pane stayed in card view while the R pane switched to the mindmap, with its own filter. The extra filters don't work in mindmap view.

(I'm not sure whether I should see that as a sensible decision or whether it was just forgotten during the coding. The mindmap is a view of the outline tree of articles - so it makes sense that would have no filters. But I realised that the mindmap view could be filtered by single tags as well as by articles!)

Obviously there is no actual mindmap when using a tag filter since that is a property of an article. Instead there is just a whiteboard which will show articles as well as notes. They can be freely moved around the board (including stacking them on top of each other), dotted lines show existing links and more connections can be made (with the option for adding text to the connection and changing line colour). New notes can be added and will be automatically tagged. It's all wonderfully useful - and I hadn't known it was there. I should maybe have read the manual.

22
One year three weeks ago, I suggested that Lattics add cumulative Boolean filters. And late last night, in the v2.5.3 update, they added them! Massively helpful for my everyday use, and a reflection of the developers' responsiveness to suggestions that accord with Lattics' core workflows.
They also added a couple of extra filters, extended PDF functionality, adaption to conttents posted from DeepSeek and ChatGPT and enabled copying rich text to Word and other word processors.
My key observation is that all updates - and they are quite frequent - improve core workflows. Many will be suggestions from users and none change the basic uses of the program.
Communication in the English language social media, Discord etc, has virtually died but responsiveness to emails etc is very good.

23
When I started using Lattics it was a very slow and gradual process; initially I moved in simple WIP, and expanded from there. The timeline feature didn't even exist. The documentation was incomplete (it's been better done imo for recently introduced features). It took time for me to get my head around the most comfortable workflows for starting new projects or bringing over more complex WIP. So I've written a simple summary of how to do it - originally for my own use.

Suggestions for starting a project and planning/plotting in Lattics.
The key fact to remember is that content text exists only once in the database. Everything else is an editable view of that content - articles, cards, timeline events, mindmap nodes (and will be &etc when they introduce new views - whiteboard apparently on way) - edit one, edit all; and don't delete cards unless you want that content gone (you can always retrieve them from the trash).

The best starting point, once you know you want a new project, is to work out the tagging system. Lattics uses hierarchical tags and they're not simple to edit once you have them set up; but it is quite simple to work out the system at the beginning and to add to it afterwards. It can all be set up later, and it is quite simple to add tags to a group of cards, but it might require a bit of effort to check that you have tagged everything you want.

First set up your project - ie create a folder for it.
You should gather all the already existing cards you want to use and add them to the project; that won't remove them from any other project they are already in. You might want to add project tags too.
Then it's just a question of preference and the needs of the project.

If you like traditional outlining, there a couple of options.
You can just write the outline on a project page or in a card (no need to use bullet points); because each entry is a block, it is easy enough to convert them to cards (the text will still show in the outline). Alternatively, you can just outline using the document tree directly. Or you can use tables to do something similar. Personally, I'd choose the first because it's simpler to add comments. This is the simplest place to start if you already have a clear idea of the narrative structure

If you are still brainstorming, with no idea of structure, a better place to start may be the mindmap/graph. If there are no articles, then it's a blank canvas and it's easy to click to add cards and draw arrows between them. There's little control of appearance, just enough to start playing with possibilities; presumably the whiteboard view, when it comes, will bring a richer visual experience.

If you have some idea of "events", then look to the timeline. Events on a timeline can be given start and end times - but they're optional, and you don't have to think of them in that way. There are lanes which contain tracks and events are placed in the tracks. Many projects won't need more than one lane. Effectively it's a grid making it easy to see arcs and people over time. The mindmap/graph is a blank canvas and the timeline is a gridded canvas. It can be used in exactly the same way as the plotting and character grids in other writing programs. It's worth remembering, if you are setting times, that there's a minimum size for an event on the graph which can make them look a bit out of place at some zoom levels.

Of course, it's entirely possible to follow all these approaches at the same time - edits in one will update all.


Again, when I started I was slightly apprehensive about how fragile the workflows might be and stuff just breaking - an all too frequent experience with many newser apps. But it has actually (touch forests, cross toes) been robust so far; and felt like it too.

24
I have always been aware of the importance of forgetting.
And of minimising cognitive effort.
And yet notes programs tend to focus on total recall and users often choose high effort strategies for managing their notes. Brute force rather than optimised effort.

My mind was drawn to this by a Reddit query from a user who appeared to systematically go through all the notes they had taken and classify or discard them. Wasting the effort in the discarded notes and losing the potential value to future needs.

I will massively oversimplify human memory:
Two main recall/memory systems: episodic/sequential and semantic/categorical. Forgetting avoids recall being clogged up by irrelevant memories - but this forgetting is more akin to fading losing the path than it is to wiping the memory out. Fading is governed by recency and frequency. Recognition memory is possibly used even more frequently in everyday life but needs the stimulus in front of us.

The highest brute force recall in programs is Search (but with the disadvantage that search terms need to be fairly precise). Folders offer Search within defined limits (but user has to know where the desired note is kept and there's often significant user effort in deciding where to put the note originally). Tags are kin to simple predefined Saved Searches and filters; they all depend on recognition of the desired note(s). The advantage of the tags etc system is that it also shows notes that are in some way similar - and notes are rarely wanted on their own. Effectively these are semantic/categorical equivalents.
Programs are less often designed to present notes in an episodic sequence. iirc the original Evernote was designed around it. The Daily Notes popularised by Roam Research is another way of achieving the same thing, but it only does this if all notes are in Daily Notes. Programs using Folders tend to put them into silos and so explicitly don't have a 'see everything in sequence' view. iirc Heptabase had such a view, but the best I have seen is in Lattics. This allows all notes to be seen as cards with view options for summary, summary with images, preview and list. The advantage is that it enables very fast visual scanning with notes being chosen by recognition. Sequence is by latest edit, so I have a recency effect as well.
Another feature popularised by Roam was wikilinking, where notes can be seen as a network of links from a note and backlinks to a note (similar to Luhmann's zettelkasten, but also reminiscent of the Citation Index tomes I well remember from academic libraries; many happy hours spent going backwards and forwards between papers and tomes until I had distilled a network of key papers, researchers and topics; computers just don't have the same aura as reference libraries and books, preferably tomes). Again, it's a typical feature of human memory where one memory will stimulate others to come forward.

Forgetting
Why exactly is forgetting important?
Primarily it's about resource management, prioritisation, and limits to attention and conscious thinking. It clears the memory and thinking palette of noise.
Forgetting is not about the deletion of memories; it's about making them progressively harder to access. The mind also needs to be open to random thoughts and submerged memories: wide open increases the potential for creativity; focus and trying to remember closes that shutter. Bringing one of those into the palette reinforces it and improves future accessibility.
The same factors are important with PKM notes.

But I know of no program that advertises its ability to forget. That's something the user has to devise for themselves - so long as they are aware that forgetting is important.
And the lowest cognitive effort way of doing this is by doing nothing where that is possible.
The difficulty is that most programs are not well set up to do useful forgetting. They either lose the note completely or render it inaccessible except through a very time consuming search process (ie high effort). Because of its fast scanning through episodic notes, Lattics offers another way of finding untagged, unfoldered notes. I only tag or link notes when I know I want that route and at that point it's very easy to do.
And from time to time I delete tags that I know I won't need in the future. The underlying notes are unaffected but there's less overhead when scanning the tag list.

The scanning with Lattics only works for me because I use a large monitor (8 cards on one row) and many of my notes are visually distinct. I'm not sure it would work with the other notes programs I am familiar with. Obsidian probably - but the tweaking is the very definition of high cognitive effort. But I'm sure something similar could be done in some other programs. Maybe the whiteboard notes programs. I assume that the next way of doing this will be using AI.
The system is different to zettelkasten (which has it's own semi-forgetting system - where notes have a parent but no children, are never referenced by any other zettel, and aren't indexed) and structurally different to the process I previously diagrammed (the actual process is somewhat similar but the cognitive effort is much reduced, and the overall structure is essentially flat).

25
I have now written a number of notes in NN. Despite the UI improvement, it's still not close to the same class for usability as Lattics and Tangent. I semi-regularly moan to myself about some perceived deficiency (eg tab won't indent a paragraph - if I want similar functionality I have to use bullets; getting into a focus mode is cumbersome). Sometimes I want to just write the note in something else and then paste it in; Proton Docs isn't too bad for that (it would somewhat remove the point of NN if I used something less secure to write the original before pasting in). But it's okay.
I'm not entirely sure SN is okay. The free version is very limited and I have no desire to use it. Quite a few negative comments keep floating too. Including once when the sync server was down for quite a while (NN's monograph server has been down once for a few hours only). Communication with the user base doesn't seem great rn. But we'll see.
Proton Docs (pale imitation of google Docs) seems functional.

One similarity I have noticed between Lattics and NN is the primacy of the individual notes. Folders (aka documents or notebooks) exist, but it's as easy to put a note in multiple folders as it is to give them multiple tags. And the views are very similar. I have a suspicion that many modern apps are designed in this way.
One difference between them is that NN is very responsive to users, while Lattic's Discord seems abandoned and that's the only public communication channel I know of. But Lattic's development is coherent and seems to be following a clear plan and purpose, while NN's feature list seems random, apart from the security emphasis which is its purpose. I'm not convinced that user requests are the best way to enhance usability - every user wants something different.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79next