Ultra Recall search flaws?

Posted by 22111
Jul 5, 2018 at 03:25 PM

@karel and whomever it may concern in particular

1) I should have added what I mean by “backlinks” with regards to UR.

As asked for in this forum very recently, “backlinks” are indicators on link targets where the “original position” of the cloned item is displayed. Such a concept implies that there IS such an “original position”, as in the NTFS file system, with .lnk files or symlinks, or in my 1996 PIM; the benefit of such a concept being that it’s easy then to produce some “output” tree, e.g. for printing, or for export of your material, the “tree building” then only following your “original positions”, not “secondary positions”: the probable “recursion problem” in this scenario being avoided, and, indeed, in the ontological, primary body of your material, everything (!) should have such a “natural position”, and also find it indeed, since at the end of the day, any automobile assurance is, and stays to be, an insurance, the “our automobiles” position just being a secondary, a “functional”, but not an ontological one, hence the conceptual mistake in publications like Steinbrecher/Müll-Schnurr: “Prozessorientierte Ablage” (something like “process/project oriented filing”), one piece of material being very probably useful/needed in multiple (project, “case”, “client’s”, whatever) “contexts” (... the notion of “contexts” having unfortunately been blurred by David Allen now).

On the other hand - read again what I wrote above, about the technical implementation of “clones” there, and which are NOT to be compared to NTFS symlinks but to NTFS hardlinks -, the usual PIMs like UR, IQ* or others do NOT use that concept of a “ONE biological parent (in fact, fathers OR mothers but not both)” vs. then “MULTIPLE legal, adoptive, natural, whatever you call them, additional also-so-called “parents” (as before)” but treat all occurrences of one (parent-or-not-(yet)) item as equal “originals”.

* = I said I don’t know IQ but can say this anyway since its developer said, in this forum, that he isn’t concerned with recursion, so I know IQ treats “clones” the usual PIM way. This being said, I’m aware of the fact that JUST the “natural progeny line” isn’t the ideal output solution whenever, in some “project” or other individual “process(ing)”, you’re trying to gather everything which is pertinent to that “case” (or other) in particular, hence the need for establishing “project/case”-specific “natural” hierarchies (i.e. “trees”, if you prefer), too, but technically-wise, that’s just another db table, including different “weight” or other attributes for the “same” “original” “items” in different “contexts”, including, furthermore, different sub-foldering in them, not every “context” (i.e. case, project, whatever you name it) needing the complete offspring of its, co-, generators. (If that’s been too abstract, I’m speaking of pre-selections in “cloned” sub-trees, and even of alternative sub-sub-trees according to respective “context”.)

Back to UR: As implied by which precedes, it’s obvious that PIMs like UR can NOT have “backlinks” since they just have multiple, equal “occurrences”, BUT UR comes with a field (I don’t remember its name) listing the other occurrences of the item in question, within that same db, and that’s really useful since within the entries “also used in” you will (hopefully) also discern the (above-explained) “natural/biological” position of the current item, within the list of its “also used in xyz context” entries; as explained above, those two groups “1-only to possibly-multiple” cannot be visually distinguished by UR since all those occurrences are equal, just as NTFS hardlinks.

2) The bitsdujour “RightNote” link http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/rightnote just gives the history of Q&A up to January, 2018, and then lists 2 irrelevant posts from that RN sale just days ago I’ve been speaking of above: “Fred User Maybe this has already been asked and answered. Does this work on Mac or iPad? Sunday at 9:11pm Copy Link Like 0 - Rael Bauer HI Fred: No. It is Windows only.”

Thus, not only my citation from above was quickly censored by “bits”, but they also binned all of those questions and answers - “ideas” (mentioned above) - which RN users dumbly offered in order to overcome the “inexistant second content pane” problem (mentioned above), and to which - rolled out into some a dozen or so “dialogs” forth and back - my citation above was the “final answer” if you allow for that preposterous term.

Considering that “bits”, except for insulting content, ONLY censors - and then with no limits indeed - upon request by the software developer in question, you are free to assume that RN’s developer HAD HAD CENSORED almost the whole “thread” of his June, 2018, “bits” half-price offering, incl. around 20 or so tries of “innocent people” just helping other users out of the shortcomings of his inferior software.

It’s all up to you of course if you now ever even TOUCH the PIM of such a developer, which I would certainly not do even for that reason alone.

Btw, and considering all I’ve advanced upon the really easy technical implementation of a “cloning” function in a db-driven (!) PIM, be it hard- or then, preferably, symlink-like, offering a db-driven PIM in 2018 without such a function, and ditto (and ditto for the simplicity of implementation) for a missing second content pane… well, that’s just missing the slightest respect for your paying customers, as well as seen by RN’s “bits” censoring orgy, having binned around 20 or more well-intended (whilst really naïve) “ideas” of paying customers trying to get more customers for the software they use, but well, once you’re in some such software, getting (your material) out isn’t that easy then, right? And so you’re necessarily interested in that tool surviving the next years you’ll need it beyond Windows updates, right?

And btw, very smart move of UR of which version 4 didn’t survive transition to Windows 10, so existing users who didn’t wish to abandon that tool altogether were forced to update to version 5 for that feature alone, and well, there weren’t that much other new features indeed… from all what I know, UR was the only piece of software that didn’t transition from 7 to 10 at all: you really know some other? And of course, any developer can introduce an artificial halt to their software functioning between 10.0.17134 Build 17134 (the allegedly current one) to any 10.0.18something or whatever them pleases…

/@karel and whomever it may concern in particular

P.S.: My last post here is from around 3 years ago, as 22111, and was met by the majority’s wish I’d be to be silenced. Hence, third party’s allegations implying otherwise would appear as erroneous.