The original question does have an issue, its https://github.com/quicksilver/Quicksilver/issues/1066. Also see this related discussion - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/blacktree-quicksilver/bookmarks$20"show$20contents"/blacktree-quicksilver/cdvA2Ti6DaM/4k60JUXhIuYJ.
And as I am really wanting this again, and I have thought of an alternative solution that I want to share so I have an excuse for bringing it up again. It still seems incredibly useful to have catalogs that are not in the global index, but that can be explicitly accessed through their catalog object. For example, search/hotkey for "Chrome Bookmarks (Catalog)" then "Show Contents" to search just that catalog. This could be extended to custom catalogs for all kinds of things - selected files searched by Spotlight query, bash history, headers in documents. By allowing non-global catalogs we expand what QS can be used with effectively. I'll add that the catalog attribute naming implies that this is possible by having two checkboxes " "Include in Global Catalog" and "Maintain an index of contents", but the latter never seems to be settable by itself. An alternative approach that accomplishes something similar would be catalog priorities. So a catalog could be marked low/high priority and its contents would be initially ranked lower or higher. So these explicit-only catalogs could be marked low so their items end up at the bottom. And the high could be useful for indicating top areas like "recent documents" or current project somehow. That would keep the "everything global" people happy while still letting us "scope lovers" isolate the less interesting items at the bottom of the list. That said, I agree with Daniel that mason's idea of multiple global catalogs is a very powerful idea as well. It enables more than explicit catalogs because you mix/match catalog types. There could multiple "global" catalogs that the user could activate. It would allow the user to create different collections of catalogs. They could have different global catalogs for different use cases, for example: * dev catalog - code files, git repositories, bookmarks, bash histories * work - work folders, contacts * personal - journal, photos, and music. Global catalogs would be a new catalog. And global catalogs would get the new action "make active catalog". We could even add that action to regular catalogs allowing the user to make any regular catalog the "active" catalog for a while. Users could then create triggers as needed. The bezel would probably need to be updated to show the catalog the user is searching in (which would be useful for the existing Show/Search Contents also). I've created https://github.com/quicksilver/Quicksilver/issues/1510 for this idea. d On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:28:47 PM UTC-7, Rob McBroom wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Jon Stovell wrote: > > But if anything, I've always found that this sort of behaviour in the > iTunes plugin was odd and annoying, and wish there were an option to put > tracks, albums, artists, and playlist straight into the catalogue rather > than using proxy objects. (Maybe if I had an enormous iTunes library I > would think differently on this, but I don't, so I don't.) > > > Heh. That sounds awful. For me, that would mean around 10,000 additional > catalog entries. At the time when the iTunes plug-in was designed, > Quicksilver’s performance would be noticeably reduced by that kind of > thing. Even with the improvements it’s seen, I don’t think that would be > unnoticed. I think it was a sensible trade-off (obviously, since I left it > that way). Why have a performance hit for *everything you do* just to > make something you do rarely a teensy bit faster. It’s not like you can’t > get to those things extremely quickly as it is. > > I thought Safari bookmarks were available even with the catalog entries > off, since it works for history. Apparently, they aren’t. > > I’m on the fence about whether or not they should be. I agree with the > sentiment that you should just let things be in the catalog because > Quicksilver will learn what you really care about, but the previous > paragraph demonstrates that I’m not willing to take that to ridiculous > extremes. I only have like 25 bookmarks. If I had thousands, I might feel > differently. > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:51 AM, mason k wrote: > > 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. > > > If you find you can’t stand it, feel free to open an issue. > > https://github.com/quicksilver/Quicksilver/issues > > -- > Rob McBroom > <http://www.skurfer.com/> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quicksilver" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blacktree-quicksilver+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to blacktree-quicksilver@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/blacktree-quicksilver?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
