Web Research -->> WOW!

Posted by JJ
Jul 5, 2007 at 03:54 PM

Derek Cornish wrote:
>Quant,
> >>>Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture
>program.
> >I’m not quite sure why you take exception to this rather innocuous
>statement. I was just suggesting - as I thought you did - that comparing WR with UR is not
>necessarily the most appropriate way of assessing merits of either. Best to compare
>WR with others in its own software segment.
> >Derek
> >
>

Maybe I should have provided a little background….

I was “sold” on UR… but the web capture ability of UR is too slow & cumbersome for me (I capture a lot of web clippings). I hate having to make sure I have the correct UR file opened to have it saved in the correct file… plus you then have to then go to UR, assign the correct categories and then drag the clipping into the appropriate fold. WR is much better in this regard! For example:

*WR allows you to dump the clipping into “New Docs” like UR. BUT you also have the “Save as” option. This allows you selct the folder, categories, add notes, set importance, title… before you save the clipping…. very nice & fast.

*PLUS, WR will allow you to take a screen dump (or area)... something UR does not do.

SO, I switched to a new approach… I used UR for everything except for web clipping. I used “Content Saver” (the old name for WR) for web clipping.

I never liked the 2 product solution. So recently I downloaded the network add-in to WR which indexes all docs you add to WR. The add-in is not a resource pig (although I thought it would be…)

Now I’m trying to get back to a 1 product solution and I’m liking WR with the index functionality.

I agree that WR does have a web clipping focus…. but with the network add-in, I’m hoping that the added functionality will allow me to use just 1 product. (Plus, like UR, WR does have an Outlook add-in)

-jj