Forum Posts Feed
ShareMouse Reviews
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by PhraseExpress
Nov 30, 2013 at 05:38 PM
Ah, sorry to hear that. Just wonder what hooked him as he apparently is doing some “campagining” here.
Michael
Posted by Franz Grieser
Nov 30, 2013 at 05:57 PM
Michael.
I can only speculate. But I don’t think he (or she?) is campaigning against Bartels/Sharemouse. If he/she is on a campaign, then it is against software developers charging (in his eyes) to much money for what they deliver.
Bye, Franz
Posted by PhraseExpress
Nov 30, 2013 at 08:36 PM
We can’t help here. We are into quality. That comes at a price.
Posted by tightbeam
Nov 30, 2013 at 08:38 PM
ShareMouse: I hope you realize that the impenetrable (both in motivation and in meaning) posts of 22111 are atypical of the useful, professional, and comprehensible posts typically found here.
Posted by 22111
Dec 1, 2013 at 02:45 PM
“If he/she is on a campaign, then it is against software developers charging (in his eyes) to much money for what they deliver. “
You ain’t entirely wrong. I’ve got problems with software like MindJet, e.g., where it quickly becomes evident from various and necessarily poor work-arounds from third-party developers that the basic fault of this software is the absence of cloning items on other maps - I developed this elsewhere, so I won’t take your time repeating the details here.
At the same time, MindJet has plenty of money so they easily could integrate the missing feature, but they persist with not integrating it.
Similar, many outliner developers seem to to development - IF they do any development - from the pov “is it very easy to implement so that it will make a quick entry to the “what’s new” list?”, and they don’t deliver what’s most “asked” from them, even from devoted, longstanding customers (because that would imply “too much work for not enough returns” from the former’s pov I suppose), and a brilliant example for this is Ultra Recall (read into their forum, even by totally ignoring my posts there!!!, incl. year-old posts from devoted customer who’ve left that place in-between) - not speaking of dozen of other examples/developers - I’ve ranted enough about this.
So what you might have overlooked here, or simply and maliciously suppressed, is the fact that I alway put the price within relation to the respective “efforts” of the developer in question, and e.g., I would NEVER EVER pretend either ConnectedTex or Zoot were “overpriced” - they both are bargains in their respective field, and I would not have any problem with paying 500 dollars for any one of them, and then about letssay 150 dollars p.a. for updates, in case such a developer would also do the above-mentioned “effort”, i.e. not only shape his software the way he likes it, but regularly add to it any additionally feature sensible people would explain to him in a sensible way - I’m not only speaking of myself here (and it’s proven, by my postings, that I explain my “needs”, don’t do but “just claim” them), but also of many other sensible, reasoned askings for needed features: Again, the Ultra Recall forum in earlier years (to which I didn’t contribute then, so I’m provenly not speaking pro domo) is the perfect example of what I assert here.
In a more general way (and to prove I’m not ranting against UR here, it’s just a perfect example, nothing more), let me AGAIN repeat the need for a very important feature that is, to my knowledge, to be found nowhere at this time, and… tbc’d below.
Unfortunately, people like you miss an important thing: I’m currently doing the “dirty work” for all of us - oh yes, I’m hearing your 08/15, unavoidable screams, “You’re certainly not speaking for me!” - by my “laying my hand into the wound” - which is not an English but a German expression, but in German, there are TWO such, rather similar, expressions, that one, and “to put salt into the wound”, and that’s at the core of the mistake you make: One approach is destructive, the other one, mine, being meant as constructive.
Where you aggravate your mistake, is in the fact that this constructiveness (for all of us, users and developers combined) would only work if fellow users did not take the position of lazy developers, but confirmed how much true my arguments are, since then only developers would not be enticed anymore to “ignore” me, as you advise them, but would finally do their homework.
From a psychological pov, it’s envy, of course, it’s group dynamics, since the provable facts are on my side, and what’s quite a little bit ridiculous about it, is the fact that some quite envy people do have some quite admirable “records” which should entitle them to easily acknowledge when somebody else’s try (= unable to avoid this pun!) go into the right direction of common interest, but inevitably make them “shine” in the very restricted area of a specialized forum, more than some other guy who uses the same forum in a more casual way but works hard, and (presumably) top-notch, in some other field he’s expert in. This way, some people, and 100 p.c. needlessly, weaken their own interests by negating my arguments being founded - this will not entice developers to do… their homework, call it DUTY??? You are of the forum participants who persistently shows the least respect to my expertise, instead of profiting from it, whilst some “cooler types” here regularly profit from my advice but without ever saying so (A.D. - do you think I’m a fool? And we aint all eager of giving credentials, every one of us, right?), since this would lesser their group-dynamical status.
Now for the “feature example” from above, the perfect “developer example” having been given there already. I repeat myself here, from another thread, but it’s one of the most important features or the most important missing feature:
Whenever you do non-creative writing in a serious way, you need cross-referencing. As said, MyInfo (and perhaps CT, from what I hear), are the most serious applications when it comes to this criterion, but both of them (if I don’t miss something of the highest interest to everybody here) only allow for cross-referencing within the electronic body of text, not for publishing (and not even for printing-out):
As I have said before, I do some external scripting instead, where, when writing (legal texts mostly), I refer to things like “#852” instead, which, after exporting the whole text from my outliner, I then, by scripting again, translate into paragraph numbers, and I think that any serious non-creative writer (doing his writing within an outliner) MUST CRAVE for such functionality built INTO his outliner, since the above-described detour means you cannot “come back”:
No means to see your cross-references (or your paragraphs, to start with: that’s the core feature missing here, from which then the feature I am asking for could be developed) in any “ordered” way, after the very first 5 minutes of your writing, and you’ll get an acceptable “rendition” of your work after export only (and if thereafter, you do some more editing, which will always be the case, you’ll find yourself with all those ugly, mixed-up “#625” bits again).
So this is a feature that any serious writer needs, but when I detail the need for it, NOBODY says, “this is so right, it’s beyond me why no outliner developer ever introduced this feature” (which would be perfect if it worked in real-time, but which would be more than just “acceptabl” even if it worked in the “F5” way, i.e. if it updated everything when you press the “refresh” command).
So, stupid, narrow-minded envies make that when somebody details where it’s high time that outliner developers did “some more”, by finally leaving their comfort zone, you pretend my claims to better software ain’t justified - all this because the 3 unofficial “owners” of this forum did not give their initial appraisal (= for similar reasons), and you ain’t but claqueurs, and for a claqueur, there’s nothing more important int his world than knowing, every second in his miserable existence, to know whom to applaud.
Think again, and we’ll have much better software at our disposal tomorrow.