From: Adam Atlas Date: 03:47 on 01 Jan 2007 Subject: Some quick bookmark hate Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? When I find some site that I'd like to come back to later, the bookmarks feature would be more useful if I didn't have to scroll through hundreds of old ones to get to it...
From: jrodman Date: 05:17 on 01 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 10:47:21PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote: > Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new > bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? When I find some site > that I'd like to come back to later, the bookmarks feature would be > more useful if I didn't have to scroll through hundreds of old ones > to get to it... Maybe you'd like the behavior followed by the browser I'm using these days: Epiphany. It doesn't add new bookmarks to the top, or the bottom. It keeps them all alpha-sorted. Isn't that neato? -josh
From: David King Date: 05:36 on 01 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate > Maybe you'd like the behavior followed by the browser I'm using these > days: Epiphany. It doesn't add new bookmarks to the top, or the > bottom. > It keeps them all alpha-sorted. > Isn't that neato? Sure, but many pages have titles like {[--++Kewlcrap.com++--]} Long useless site title -- Actual Page's title So that's useful if it lets you rename them to sane names
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 01:49 on 02 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 10:47:21PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote: >> Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new >> bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? When I find some site >> that I'd like to come back to later, the bookmarks feature would be >> more useful if I didn't have to scroll through hundreds of old ones >> to get to it... > > Maybe you'd like the behavior followed by the browser I'm using these > days: Epiphany. It doesn't add new bookmarks to the top, or the bottom. > It keeps them all alpha-sorted. > > Isn't that neato? That's really kewl! I think the only thing that could top that would be to go Lotus Notes way and generate a descriptive id like e159be295e144eec7f634f507496a97d9461483377bddca00bae93c4451c7eb9 for every page! > -josh >
From: Robert Rothenberg Date: 01:43 on 02 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate Suppose it adds your new bookmark to the top of the list, but you want it moved to the bottom? Firefox 2.0 allows me to choose a folder to add the bookmark to, when I use Ctrl+D. Or if I have the bookmarks sidebar open (Ctrl+B), I can drag and drop it to anywhere in the hierarchy I like. On 01/01/07 03:47 Adam Atlas wrote: > Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new > bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? When I find some site > that I'd like to come back to later, the bookmarks feature would be more > useful if I didn't have to scroll through hundreds of old ones to get to > it... >
From: Michael Leuchtenburg Date: 03:33 on 02 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate Spake Adam Atlas: > Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new > bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? Not only that, but the features which make it possible to actually organize bookmarks are so slow as to make them almost unusable. Why does it often take a couple of seconds to open or close the bookmark sidebar in Firefox? Is it so hard? It's a damn sidebar! Yes, Firefox, you're trying to render a page over in that other tab; the interface is more important. Responsive interfaces: relics of a forgotten age.
From: Sean Conner Date: 05:12 on 24 Jan 2007 Subject: Re: Some quick bookmark hate It was thus said that the Great Michael Leuchtenburg once stated: > Spake Adam Atlas: > > Am I the only one who finds it hateful that most web browsers add new > > bookmarks/favourites to the BOTTOM of the list? > > Not only that, but the features which make it possible to actually > organize bookmarks are so slow as to make them almost unusable. Why does > it often take a couple of seconds to open or close the bookmark sidebar > in Firefox? Is it so hard? It's a damn sidebar! Yes, Firefox, you're > trying to render a page over in that other tab; the interface is more > important. Have you *looked* at the bookmarks file? Tag soup, which makes it difficult to manipulate it with XML based tools. Why they couldn't just use <UL> and <LI> tags, I don't know. My major problem with the way Firefox handles the bookmark sidebar (which I use all the time) is that sometimes the interface doesn't quite keep up, and whole hiarchies of bookmarks get shoved to new and interesting places (hey! What happened to my daily blog list? Oh, there it is, mixed in with my daily comics trawling list---sigh). > Responsive interfaces: relics of a forgotten age. What do you expect? Half of Firefox is written in some unholy bastardized scripting language du jour. -spc ("How much memory you got?" "How much do you need?" "And I asked, how much you GOT?")
Generated at 10:25 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi