111–120 of 161 posts
The more mental effort put towards something, the easier it is to remember.
I think this is going in the wrong direction. While cool URIs don't change [0], many URLs that you'd like to bookmark are not cool. So for bookmarks to be useful long-term you need to store much more data than just the URL. At the very least you need a timestamp to be able to find the resource you wanted to bookmark on the Internet Archive in the future. But better would be to save a snapshot of the site alongside th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a reliable standard to do this across browser vendors and versions and not have to rely on a proprietary cloud implementation on somebody's server?
I think bookmarks.html is pretty standard.
The underappreciated .url file / [InternetShortcut] format seems like a much better fit for this: 1. 20+ years of OS support for double-click to open 2. It already supports an embedded title. 3. It's basically just INI/TOML, so you can add custom fields that get ignored by parsers. Want to embed a screenshot? Just append Screenshot=B64(data). Want to add tags? Same deal. You can also organise them as files in...folde…
> It's basically just INI/TOML That’s a dealbreaker for me. I like something that I can use grep and other Unix utilities on. There’s a reason that the tabular style formats of /etc/passwd, crontab and inetd exist. > You can also organise them as files in...folders. +1 on this concept, though. For some reason folks forget that the filesystem is a pretty decent hierarchical database!
https://www.someurl.com' " />
upon opening these htmls , the browser just redirects to the actual url.
this is interesting but anyone has tried to create a small scale version of their own search engine using only their bookmark links. I am surprised why that's not more common. If someone has 5k+ bookmark links and wants only results from those links given a query, it should be straightforward.
I think this is going in the wrong direction. While cool URIs don't change [0], many URLs that you'd like to bookmark are not cool. So for bookmarks to be useful long-term you need to store much more data than just the URL. At the very least you need a timestamp to be able to find the resource you wanted to bookmark on the Internet Archive in the future. But better would be to save a snapshot of the site alongside th…
I've been using Zotero for that, but I again wish we had a browser maker that was concerned about users, and felt their only goal was to give the user as much control and ability as they can handle, and as much protection as they ask for.
Sadly, Zotero and a lot of other software in that line is built with no thought to speed, I think more than a few thousand entries will make it impossible to open, browse, or search. This seems to be a commonality of all of this type of software; that it isn't really meant to be used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thing is - I just saved bookmarks, I never really utilised them ever, to find something, to go back to. You're not describing a bookmarks issue. You're describing a personal organization issue, which is reflected on how you manage bookmarks. You're voicing the exact same sort of complains often directed at todo lists. In fact, from your description you're implicitly treating bookmarks as ad-hoc Todo lists, and…
Because it represents wasted time and cognitive load. It's a vestigial habit from an era when search was bad. Between (AI) search and browser history, I don't see much need for bookmarks.
I think this is going in the wrong direction. While cool URIs don't change [0], many URLs that you'd like to bookmark are not cool. So for bookmarks to be useful long-term you need to store much more data than just the URL. At the very least you need a timestamp to be able to find the resource you wanted to bookmark on the Internet Archive in the future. But better would be to save a snapshot of the site alongside th…
This feels like it relates to why for many Tabs seem to be the "new" bookmarks. Browser bookmark UX stagnated at some point in the 90s, but tab UX keeps improving. Especially on mobile devices, tabs keep screenshots of at least their last state. Users often have a general sense of time from their order of tabs.
To me they're completely different purposes. Tabs are short term - for whatever you're working on right now. It's like a short-term cache, a worktable to keep everything in your head right now easily accessible.
Bookmarks are long term, like a filing cabinet. You may not be using it today, but you want to hold onto it for later.
If I had to use either one for the other purpose, it would suck.
I've solved the "non-curated" with Karakeep; especially its AI autotagging.
Now I have to figure out the next thing I want, which is a self-hosted service that
- saves bookmarks, duh
- saves "readability" style copies (no need for other stuff, I just need text)
- some decent method of collections beyond just tags
and the last thing that is very oddly rare
- publically accessible WITHOUT login (this is partly for publishing readings to classes I teach)
I can't find a sweetspot of all of these, may have to just build it myself?
I think this is going in the wrong direction. While cool URIs don't change [0], many URLs that you'd like to bookmark are not cool. So for bookmarks to be useful long-term you need to store much more data than just the URL. At the very least you need a timestamp to be able to find the resource you wanted to bookmark on the Internet Archive in the future. But better would be to save a snapshot of the site alongside th…
Being able to save a page also seems to be against the interests of publishers now - they would rather you revisit the page than have a copy. Substack for example seems to try to block the web clipper because you could clip paid articles and read them after your subscription lapses.