ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

News and Reviews > Mini-Reviews by Members

Qiqqa - Reference Management System - Mini-Review

<< < (4/7) > >>

I tried this several years ago. So my experience is based the old version.
There are somethings that I don't like
1. Qiqqa save the OCR result in the database, instead of in the corresponding PDF.
2. Qiqqa is designed to use the internal pdf viewer. But I prefer to use PDF XChange.

PDF XChange can perform OCR and save the result in the PDF.
This makes Qiqqa less attracting.
-oversky (March 28, 2013, 04:56 AM)
--- End quote ---
Thanks for that rather interesting info. I did not know that "Qiqqa save the OCR result in the database, instead of in the corresponding PDF", but I can see that, if true, then that would probably explain why "Qiqqa is designed to use the internal pdf viewer". I wonder if the current version still does that?

That could be quite an important distinction to make for someone who wanted to move about Qiqqa's version of the PDFs and the OCR together - after all, PDF does stand for "Portable Document Format"!    ;)

I shall try and find out whether Qiqqa still does not embed the OCR output in the PDF file to which it relates. If it still does not, then I feel sure there would be a reason. Fortunately, it wouldn't really affect me, either way, because for my requirements the only document I want to be able to move about would be the original (source) document in my Library, not some semi-proprietary version/copy of the original that Qiqqa had created in its database.

If a Library PDF document of mine was an imaged document, and if I wanted to OCR it, then I would tend to do the OCR on/in that original Library document on an individual or batch basis, using (say) PDF XChange Viewer - which does a good job in that regard.

...I have overcome the problem by downloading to my laptop, installing, then copying the complete program and installing onto my desktop.  Now works fine, in my opinion, not as good as Mendeley
-wales (April 01, 2013, 09:04 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's really odd. I wonder why a straightforward install does not work on your PC? At a guess, I'd say it might be some necessary system file/version that is absent from from your XP OS.

Are you able to elaborate specifically as to why Qiqqa is "...not as good as Mendeley..."? That could be quite useful feedback for me to put into the OP of this review. I had tried Mendeley and some others quite some time ago, before settling on Qiqqa, so it might be that these softwares have changed and are in a kind of technological leapfrog.

My brain keeps telling me the name of this software is ALMOST racist.

2013-06-28 Update: Qiqqa v55s released end of May 2013.
Release notes: per the Qiqqa blog.

* - Premium Fields allow you to restrict your searches to ANY of the fields that you have added in your PDF BibTeX records.
* - Qiqqa now supports the Bluebook legal CSL style.
* - Qiqqa supports the “short form" of journal name in your bibliographies.
* - You can refresh the Annotation Report for a PDF or jump straight to a full blown Annotation Report.
* - Qiqqa warns about DropBox conflicts.

As you may remember we talk somewhere about Qiqqa. Big program indeed.
Finally I don't adopt and I don't remember why.
A few days ago, in my rutinary revision of sotware i discover docfetcher.

don't appear in the wiki in the category you express above.

What are the differences ?

Best Regards


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version