It's not like Google, because I know what *exactly* what I'm looking for when I Quicksilver for something. Therefore, I don't expect there to be an intercolary step of picking that item out of a short list of possibilities.
On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:40:40 AM UTC-4, hmelman wrote: > > FYI, my bookmarks add about 3000 items to the catalog and they don't get > in the way. > > To me it's like google. If what I want is the in the first page of > results, I don't care if there are another 180,000 pages of them. > > Howard > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:51 AM, mason k wrote: > > Good morning all you fine Quicksilverers. I have a few pontifications to > lavish. > > In the words of the 20th century lama Chögyam Trungpa, "precision breeds > relaxation." Having my Bookmarks in the Catalog triples the size of the > Catalog, which is why I don't want it. (Having my iTunes music in there > would multiply the size of the Catalog 100x and is laughably out of the > question.) > > In my father's carpentry shop, his single organizational principle is > "ready to hand/out of the way". That is, each item in the shop must be > either close to hand or out of the way. The reasoning behind each item's > placement is actually less important than the discipline of the message: > each item must be explicitly the one or the other. The human mind will > certainly find excellent "whys" to fill in blanks. > > In QS, this means that I carefully curate what goes into the Catalog. > Perhaps hmelman has the answer: perhaps, given time, QuickSilver's machine > learning will correctly organize the shop for me. I certainly haven't > given it enough time to claim that it doesn't. Less the possibility of that > *deus ex machina, *each person needs to draw the line between "ready to > hand" and "out of the way" differently. I do believe that the very act of > drawing the line is a useful clarifying exercise: even if the computer > would eventually (and implicitly) draw much the same lines on my behalf. > > All of that said, "which water is too pure has no fish". So, I'm going to > dump the bookmarks into my beautiful Catalog for a week and see whether I'm > still rifling through garbage at the end. > > On Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:32:53 AM UTC-4, hmelman wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Daniel wrote: >> >> A more general solution would be a way of making any set of Catalog >>> scanners into a separate Catalog. Essentially, a way of maintaing n >>> Catalogs on n different key sequences. >>> >> >> That is an absolutely awesome idea (something I've thought of before, >> myself). +1 if there's anyone interested in implementing. >> >> >> So why is this useful? I'm sure there's something I'm not understanding. >> It strikes me as "I want to find this stuff but not have it in the catalog, >> well put it in the catalog". >> >> What's the issue with having one catalog with everything? When you want >> to find something it's still in there. Just type a little more the first >> few times and then QS learns. Are you browsing the results list rather than >> continuing to type to find something in it? >> >> Howard >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups Quicksilver group. To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, > send email to [email protected]. For > more options, visit this group at > https://groups.google.com/d/forum/blacktree-quicksilver?hl=en > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Quicksilver group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/blacktree-quicksilver?hl=en
