🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mbxfd-100993125624@macfd.biochem.nott.ac.uk>,
mbxfd@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Fergus Doherty) wrote:

> Now I might be the only one who thinks this would be useful but:
> 
> EndNote can carry out successive searches on previously selected records
> (at least the earlier version I had did).  Although EndNote Plus has a much
> better search facility I think this might be useful in EndNote Plus as
> well.  So you set up what might be a complex search on a large database and
> it returns too many records.  Ok so you could alter the search by including
> more criteria and search the whole database again.  But why not be able to
> select the currently retrieved records to be searched again with new
> criteria?  Could be useful, perhaps............ I think.

Related to this are two other suggestions:

(1) Be able to keep all references you have already found, and simply ADD
to this set, rather than REPLACE this set, with the results of an
additional search.

(2) After you have found a set of references, be able to selectively
discard (from the found set, not from the reference library) references.

It seems that the way EN+ is currently set up, you must at some point come
up with a single, possibly very complicated boolean set of search criteria
which, in one fell swoop, will give you exactly the references you want.
Implementing the above suggestions would often simplify this task greatly.

  ___
   |
 \_|IM RATLIFF
   Dept. of Economics
   University of Arizona

In article <jratliff-100993091149@econ179.bpa.arizona.edu>,
Jim Ratliff <jratliff@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> wrote:
>In article <mbxfd-100993125624@macfd.biochem.nott.ac.uk>,
>mbxfd@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Fergus Doherty) wrote:
>
>> Now I might be the only one who thinks this would be useful but:
>> 
>> EndNote can carry out successive searches on previously selected records
>> (at least the earlier version I had did).  Although EndNote Plus has a much
>> better search facility I think this might be useful in EndNote Plus as
>> well.  So you set up what might be a complex search on a large database and
>> it returns too many records.  Ok so you could alter the search by including
>> more criteria and search the whole database again.  But why not be able to
>> select the currently retrieved records to be searched again with new
>> criteria?  Could be useful, perhaps............ I think.
>
>Related to this are two other suggestions:
>
>(1) Be able to keep all references you have already found, and simply ADD
>to this set, rather than REPLACE this set, with the results of an
>additional search.
>
>(2) After you have found a set of references, be able to selectively
>discard (from the found set, not from the reference library) references.
>
>It seems that the way EN+ is currently set up, you must at some point come
>up with a single, possibly very complicated boolean set of search criteria
>which, in one fell swoop, will give you exactly the references you want.
>Implementing the above suggestions would often simplify this task greatly.
>

Yes to all of these!


|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David M. Todd ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA|
|Phone: 413/545-0158 ___ <David.Todd@Psych.UMass.EDU> ____  Fax: 413/545-0996|

In article <1993Sep10.192913.10429@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
(Joachim Heymer) wrote:

> - for more complex searches it would be easier and quicker to use a simple
>   language with keywords (OR - AND - NOT - NEAR) or symbols and brackets
>   than to use a dialog box.

I would like to see this part of the interface--viz. the Find dialog
box--redesigned with the following goal:

Make it more friendly toward non-mouse-driven usage! I.e. make it easier to
enter search criteria completely from the keyboard. It's a pain once I
enter one author to leave the keyboard to go to the mouse to go hunt for
the "and" button and then back to the keyboard to type a second author's
name. (Also how about one quick command to clear all the search criteria in
order to make a fresh start?)

  ___
   |
 \_|IM RATLIFF
   Dept. of Economics
   University of Arizona

In article <mbxfd-100993125624@macfd.biochem.nott.ac.uk> mbxfd@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Fergus Doherty) writes:
>Now I might be the only one who thinks this would be useful but:
>
>EndNote can carry out successive searches on previously selected records
>(at least the earlier version I had did).  Although EndNote Plus has a much
>better search facility I think this might be useful in EndNote Plus as
>well.  <Stuff deleted> But why not be able to
>select the currently retrieved records to be searched again with new
>criteria?

I strongly agree.  Now that my library is over 2000 refs, it can take some
time to search.  Because I routinely transfer my library between work and
home, it won't fit on a disk with the Quick Find Index.  And it takes along
time to set up each time.  Hence I don't use it and my searches are 
slow.  I use keywords to subdivide my library into different subjects, but
subselecting would be faster if there was an option to only search the 
sub library.