List Archives >  Reference Manager List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved

Search email archive for  

Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved
Author: Peter Malling    Posted: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:37:27 -0400
tab Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0800 Sender: "listmaster" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "ris-list" I just wrote a posting, that RM clears the marks after having made a new F5. After further investigation I found out that this is actually not what happens. Rather, RM handles marks in the retrieved tab and on the tab for the actual database, separately. So even though I mark certain records on the retrieved tab, this is not reflected on the tab of the database. I think that the retrieved tab is a new instance of a subset in the original database, should be considered purely a reference to the original record, and whatever manipulation you make on the retrieved tab should be reflected in the original database. I know that marking records is not really ammending the database records, but still it would be more logical if RM replicated the marking of records made on the retrieved tab on the tab of the database. Because F5 (or F4) is the only way to find the records, you want to mark, and the whole logic behind marking records is that first you mark a number of records, and then you do something with them. In Endnote you don't have this problem, as you can just type the first letters of the author, and it will jump to that author, you are still in the correct database window and can just mark it. But as this is (regretably) not possible in RM, you are left with search for records in order to mark them. Of course - and that will probably be what I have to do - I can find the records by browsing up and down in the database, but this is really not feasible in a large database. Have I overlooked something? Peter, Denmark.

FW: Clear marks -> records are only marked on
Author: Robert Palermo    Posted: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:14:55 -0400
retrieved Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:50:00 -0800 Sender: "listmaster" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "ris-list" I also believe it an inconvenience that records marked in a retrieved list are not also marked in the original database. So I hope the RIS folks are monitoring this thread. In finding relevant references by a search, I often determine only a subset of the retrieve references are suitable. I would like to mark them, and then do an additional search, and then again mark additional relevant references. If these marks were all preserved and recapitulated in the main database window, I could then sort by the marks and get the accumulated references I want to insert. There have been numerous instances when I would have exploited this strategy. -----Original Message----- From: "Peter.Ma?????????????????????? [mailto:"Peter.Ma??????????????????????] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:37 PM To: "RIS-List" Subject: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved tab Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0800 Sender: "listmaster" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "ris-list" I just wrote a posting, that RM clears the marks after having made a new F5. After further investigation I found out that this is actually not what happens. Rather, RM handles marks in the retrieved tab and on the tab for the actual database, separately. So even though I mark certain records on the retrieved tab, this is not reflected on the tab of the database. I think that the retrieved tab is a new instance of a subset in the original database, should be considered purely a reference to the original record, and whatever manipulation you make on the retrieved tab should be reflected in the original database. I know that marking records is not really ammending the database records, but still it would be more logical if RM replicated the marking of records made on the retrieved tab on the tab of the database. Because F5 (or F4) is the only way to find the records, you want to mark, and the whole logic behind marking records is that first you mark a number of records, and then you do something with them. In Endnote you don't have this problem, as you can just type the first letters of the author, and it will jump to that author, you are still in the correct database window and can just mark it. But as this is (regretably) not possible in RM, you are left with search for records in order to mark them. Of course - and that will probably be what I have to do - I can find the records by browsing up and down in the database, but this is really not feasible in a large database. Have I overlooked something? Peter, Denmark.

RE: Clear marks -> records are only marked on
Author: Thomas    Posted: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:40:00 -0800
You could always try creating a reference index from those marked records, peform a new search and then later on adding the new hits to your old reference index. In that way, all marks can be preserved. Thomas D'haenens Bibliotheekmedewerker Instituut voor Natuur- en BosOnderzoek Tel. (0) 54 - 43 61 98 Mob. (0) 472 - 21 52 93 e-mail "thomas.dhaenens" -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: "Robert.Palermo" "mailto:Robert.Palermo" Verzonden: woensdag 21 juni 2006 23:15 Aan: "RIS-List" Onderwerp: FW: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:50:00 -0800 Sender: "listmaster" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "ris-list" I also believe it an inconvenience that records marked in a retrieved list are not also marked in the original database. So I hope the RIS folks are monitoring this thread. In finding relevant references by a search, I often determine only a subset of the retrieve references are suitable. I would like to mark them, and then do an additional search, and then again mark additional relevant references. If these marks were all preserved and recapitulated in the main database window, I could then sort by the marks and get the accumulated references I want to insert. There have been numerous instances when I would have exploited this strategy. -----Original Message----- From: "Peter.Ma?????????????????????? [mailto:"Peter.Ma??????????????????????] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:37 PM To: "RIS-List" Subject: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved tab Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0800 Sender: "listmaster" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "ris-list" I just wrote a posting, that RM clears the marks after having made a new F5. After further investigation I found out that this is actually not what happens. Rather, RM handles marks in the retrieved tab and on the tab for the actual database, separately. So even though I mark certain records on the retrieved tab, this is not reflected on the tab of the database. I think that the retrieved tab is a new instance of a subset in the original database, should be considered purely a reference to the original record, and whatever manipulation you make on the retrieved tab should be reflected in the original database. I know that marking records is not really ammending the database records, but still it would be more logical if RM replicated the marking of records made on the retrieved tab on the tab of the database. Because F5 (or F4) is the only way to find the records, you want to mark, and the whole logic behind marking records is that first you mark a number of records, and then you do something with them. In Endnote you don't have this problem, as you can just type the first letters of the author, and it will jump to that author, you are still in the correct database window and can just mark it. But as this is (regretably) not possible in RM, you are left with search for records in order to mark them. Of course - and that will probably be what I have to do - I can find the records by browsing up and down in the database, but this is really not feasible in a large database. Have I overlooked something? Peter, Denmark.

Re: Clear marks -> records are only marked on
Author: Sarah Cage    Posted: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:50:00 -0800
I had assumed that marking records in the retrieved window was intended to be temporary, while they are being worked on. For a more permanent "mark" you can add something to one of the "user defined" fields, then search on that to retrieve all the "marked" references. (If you don't want to keep the addition, you can always do a global edit on the list and overwrite your "mark" with a space. Personally I would not want "marks" permanently added to the main database record, as I regularly do global edits to "all marked references" in a list - so I would have to remember to regularly "delete all marks". Sarah Cage Senior Scientific Information Specialist National Poisons Information Service Birmingham, UK email "s.cage" ----- Original Message ----- From: "DHAENENS" <"thomas[thom"@inbo.be] To: "RIS-List" Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:40 PM Subject: RE: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on > > You could always try creating a reference index from those marked > records, peform a new search and then later on adding the new hits to > your old reference index. In that way, all marks can be preserved. > > Thomas D'haenens > > Bibliotheekmedewerker > Instituut voor Natuur- en BosOnderzoek > Tel. (0) 54 - 43 61 98 > Mob. (0) 472 - 21 52 93 > e-mail "thomas.dhaenens" > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: "Robert.Palermo" "mailto:Robert.Palermo" > Verzonden: woensdag 21 juni 2006 23:15 > Aan: "RIS-List" > Onderwerp: FW: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on > > retrieved > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:50:00 -0800 > Sender: "listmaster" > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: "ris-list" > > > I also believe it an inconvenience that records marked in a retrieved > list are not also marked in the original database. So I hope the RIS > folks are monitoring this thread. > > In finding relevant references by a search, I often determine only a > subset of the retrieve references are suitable. I would like to mark > them, and then do an additional search, and then again mark additional > relevant references. > > If these marks were all preserved and recapitulated in the main database > window, I could then sort by the marks and get the accumulated > references I want to insert. > > There have been numerous instances when I would have exploited this > strategy. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Peter.Ma?????????????????????? > [mailto:"Peter.Ma??????????????????????] > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:37 PM > To: "RIS-List" > Subject: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved > > tab > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0800 > Sender: "listmaster" > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: "ris-list" > > > I just wrote a posting, that RM clears the marks after having made a new > F5. > After further investigation I found out that this is actually not what > happens. Rather, RM handles marks in the retrieved tab and on the tab > for the actual database, separately. So even though I mark certain > records on the retrieved tab, this is not reflected on the tab of the > database. > > > > I think that the retrieved tab is a new instance of a subset in the > original database, should be considered purely a reference to the > original record, and whatever manipulation you make on the retrieved tab > should be reflected in the original database. I know that marking > records is not really ammending the database records, but still it would > be more logical if RM replicated the marking of records made on the > retrieved tab on the tab of the database. Because F5 (or F4) is the only > way to find the records, you want to mark, and the whole logic behind > marking records is that first you mark a number of records, and then you > do something with them. In Endnote you don't have this problem, as you > can just type the first letters of the author, and it will jump to that > author, you are still in the correct database window and can just mark > it. But as this is (regretably) not possible in RM, you are left with > search for records in order to mark them. > Of course - and that will probably be what I have to do - I can find the > records by browsing up and down in the database, but this is really not > feasible in a large database. > > > > Have I overlooked something? > > Peter, Denmark. > > > >

Re: Clear marks -> records are only marked on
Author: Robert Palermo    Posted: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:50:00 -0800
To the prior two posts - I have created reference indices and added references to them. That is too permanent a "mark", and would require making a new index for every temporary list. Too time-consuming for a short-lived list. I could also do global edits of a special user field. And then have to do a second global edit to clear the user field. Again, that just recapitulates the mark/clear marks function. To Sarah's remark, I think you also misunderstood. I don't want all retrieved references to be marked in the main database. But having a mark a record in a retrieved list, I would like it marked in the main database it came from. In neither case is the mark intended to be a permanent change. Would it make sense to you if you edited a reference in the retrieved window, and the change was not mirrored in the main database? In the same sense I expect a marked box to be mirrored between the two. For your global edits of marked references, as you begin start another session of marking, you must have to clear all marks. -----Original Message----- From: "listmaster" "mailto:listmaster" On Behalf Of "Sarah.Ca??????????? Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:50 PM To: "RIS-List" Subject: Re: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on I had assumed that marking records in the retrieved window was intended to be temporary, while they are being worked on. For a more permanent "mark" you can add something to one of the "user defined" fields, then search on that to retrieve all the "marked" references. (If you don't want to keep the addition, you can always do a global edit on the list and overwrite your "mark" with a space. Personally I would not want "marks" permanently added to the main database record, as I regularly do global edits to "all marked references" in a list - so I would have to remember to regularly "delete all marks". Sarah Cage Senior Scientific Information Specialist National Poisons Information Service Birmingham, UK email "s.cage" ----- Original Message ----- From: "DHAENENS" <"thomas[thom"@inbo.be] To: "RIS-List" Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:40 PM Subject: RE: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on > > You could always try creating a reference index from those marked > records, peform a new search and then later on adding the new hits to > your old reference index. In that way, all marks can be preserved. > > Thomas D'haenens > > Bibliotheekmedewerker > Instituut voor Natuur- en BosOnderzoek Tel. (0) 54 - 43 61 98 Mob. (0) > 472 - 21 52 93 e-mail "thomas.dhaenens" > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: "Robert.Palermo" "mailto:Robert.Palermo" > Verzonden: woensdag 21 juni 2006 23:15 > Aan: "RIS-List" > Onderwerp: FW: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on > > retrieved > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:50:00 -0800 > Sender: "listmaster" > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: "ris-list" > > > I also believe it an inconvenience that records marked in a retrieved > list are not also marked in the original database. So I hope the RIS > folks are monitoring this thread. > > In finding relevant references by a search, I often determine only a > subset of the retrieve references are suitable. I would like to mark > them, and then do an additional search, and then again mark additional > relevant references. > > If these marks were all preserved and recapitulated in the main database > window, I could then sort by the marks and get the accumulated > references I want to insert. > > There have been numerous instances when I would have exploited this > strategy. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Peter.Ma?????????????????????? > [mailto:"Peter.Ma??????????????????????] > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:37 PM > To: "RIS-List" > Subject: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on retrieved > > tab > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0800 > Sender: "listmaster" > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: "ris-list" > > > I just wrote a posting, that RM clears the marks after having made a new > F5. > After further investigation I found out that this is actually not what > happens. Rather, RM handles marks in the retrieved tab and on the tab > for the actual database, separately. So even though I mark certain > records on the retrieved tab, this is not reflected on the tab of the > database. > > > > I think that the retrieved tab is a new instance of a subset in the > original database, should be considered purely a reference to the > original record, and whatever manipulation you make on the retrieved tab > should be reflected in the original database. I know that marking > records is not really ammending the database records, but still it would > be more logical if RM replicated the marking of records made on the > retrieved tab on the tab of the database. Because F5 (or F4) is the only > way to find the records, you want to mark, and the whole logic behind > marking records is that first you mark a number of records, and then you > do something with them. In Endnote you don't have this problem, as you > can just type the first letters of the author, and it will jump to that > author, you are still in the correct database window and can just mark > it. But as this is (regretably) not possible in RM, you are left with > search for records in order to mark them. > Of course - and that will probably be what I have to do - I can find the > records by browsing up and down in the database, but this is really not > feasible in a large database. > > > > Have I overlooked something? > > Peter, Denmark. > > > >

Re: Clear marks -> records are only marked on
Author: Sarah Cage    Posted: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:05:00 -0800
Robert - I didn't think you were marking all retrieved references. I also do a search, and mark the important references, to print or do some other changes to them. I often repeat this for different groups for different purposes in one editing session. If you then made global changes to "all marked references", this would presumably change all the marked references in the whole database (mine has over 50,000 references). So you would have to remember to "clear all marks" after each search - which comes to a similar irritation to your having to clear temporary editing in the User Def field at the end of a series of searches. My impression of "marks" is that they are intended to be temporary for the searched references for the duration of a search, which I find more useful. Another advantage of a temporary edit after marking references - if there is a database problem (I regularly have RM decide to crash - at least once or twice a week), or a power cut - or get called away - the marks will not be lost. I suppose one point of marking references in the master database temporarily is so that when your retrieve them with a slightly different search, you would be able to see immediately which ones you had retrieved from a previous search.However this would still be the case for a temporary edit. In conclusion - I'd prefer the marks to only remain for the duration of the sub-set, rather than remaining on the master database until specifically cleared! Sarah Cage Senior Scientific Information Specialist National Poisons Information Service Birmingham, UK email "s.cage" ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Robert.Pale???????????????????" <"Robert.Pale??????????????????? To: "RIS-List" Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:50 AM Subject: Re: <RefMan> Clear marks -> records are only marked on > > To the prior two posts - I have created reference indices and added > references to them. That is too permanent a "mark", and would require > making a new index for every temporary list. Too time-consuming for a > short-lived list. > > I could also do global edits of a special user field. And then have to > do a second global edit to clear the user field. Again, that just > recapitulates > the mark/clear marks function. > > To Sarah's remark, I think you also misunderstood. I don't want all > retrieved references to be marked in the main database. But having a > mark a record in a retrieved list, I would like it marked in the main > database it came from. In neither case is the mark intended to be a > permanent change. > > > Would it make sense to you if you edited a reference in the retrieved > window, and the change was not mirrored in the main database? In the > same sense I expect a marked box to be mirrored between the two. > > For your global edits of marked references, as you begin start another > session of marking, you must have to clear all marks. > > > >

Previous by date: RE: Importing from WoS problem, Becky Skidmore
Next by date: Problem with access,  Mahesh
Previous thread: Deleting large numbers of duplicates?, Reinhard Wentz
Next thread: Problem with access,  Mahesh