But reading the comments here, I get another impression of the company.
But reading the comments here, I get another impression of the company.
Is this just an aggressive PE firm or what?
I was not planning to do that, and I don't wish that they force me to do that.
Isn't that because there's not much further the Evernote app can fall?
Also, the professional plan has GPS tagged notes, which I tend to like. Evernote doesn't have much alternatives for what I use it for. Notion doesn't work offline, Obsidian is too information dense and not easy to collaborate with. I use Obsidian + publish for my digital garden, but it doesn't work well for other things I use Evernote for.
I never had the data loss people mentioned about, either.
Lastly, I don't care about AI stuff in either Evernote or Notion. I neither trust the tech, nor I consent to train these "things" with my data.
I think the downhill slide has begun - they recently changed the terms / capabilities on their free version to make it even more limited and, presumably, to get more people to upgrade.
It's good to know this because it gives me the push I needed to finally move off my very limited use of the app.
Apples free notes app replaced it and other than being SLIGHTLY annoying that I have to log into the web app on windows machines... I dont miss evernote at all.
though
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/990813/o...
Looks like a webapp wrapper. It is snappy in my use though on a 2010 i7 MBA running Ubuntu 2022.
"Evernote was acquired and everyone was laid off."
"Immuni was awarded but less than 1% used it."
"Acquired some company and fired its entire team."
Literally sounds like some tech scavenger.
So yes, if you are not part of the cabal, I would expect your edits to be reverted...at some point in time. I have very little faith in the system.
If you are part of the cabal, how long did it take to learn the handshake? /s
I have about a thousand edits now. Some of them were reverted, but most weren't. I think the reason people perceive there to be a "cabal" is that they edit articles that are either very contentious to begin with (national identity, gender, politics) or are high traffic and most of the content has already been discussed at length.
Even in those areas, I think there is not a cabal, just lots of angry individual people who oftentimes end up being banned if they get angry enough.
But I don't generally edit in high traffic areas generally because I don't like long litigations on talk pages. The last time I saw the "cabal" in effect on Wikipedia was when I tried to rephrase some things on a page related to a controversial topic. There were two users working together to load the page with some very biased terms. I tried to remove them but was swiftly reverted. I think that's what you mean when you say the cabal.
I gave up editing that article because a long fight didn't interest me. Since then, both of the users trying to guard that article against edits have since been banned from editing in the area that article was in. The "cabal" as you see it is usually just a small number of very interested editors with a strong opinion. If their opinions are too strong, then they're usually in violation of Wikipedia policy and they get cleaned out eventually. I don't like to fight with those people though.
My favourite thing to do on Wikipedia is clean up around the edges.
If you follow this link, you'll be taken to a random article which is tagged as being written in a promotional tone. There are around 25,000 articles like this on Wikipedia at the moment.
https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_articles_with_a_p...
These articles could use attention from an average, unbiased person to help tidy them up and read more neutrally. I see fixing Wikipedia articles like a kind of gardening. There is a lot to do in areas which are not trafficked so highly.
I hope you would consider contributing one day.