If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How to sort Bookmarks (and check them)
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | I've just tried AM-DeadLink again; it still works well. I don't understand why that would be popular. Next time you try to use the link you'll find out if it's dead. It's not like a lightbulb, where you can substitute a working one. It sounds to me sort of like having a phone app called DoIHaveMyGlassesOn?, used by people who can't see text on their cellphone without glasses. Each to his own; "what use is that" questions rarely have answers that will satisfy the person asking them. However, I can't help trying (-:. In this case, as well as just general tidiness preference (it's odd: my home is so untidy that I really don't encourage visitors, but I like to think the inside of my computer is tidy!), there's also the point that (in this case) bookmarks are easier to find if there are fewer of them, and thus removing dud ones speeds their use. But really, there are just some of us who like knowing we don't have non-working bookmarks, however much or little time that actually saves. Clearly, you are not among us! There are plenty of things you do that I don't. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. -Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977) |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How to sort Bookmarks (and check them)
John
He didn't miss it, he snipped it - Both. without indicating that he'd done so. When is the last time you explained why you quoted some stuff, but not other parts ? whistle But yes, I missed it - and again when I re-checked before I wrote that reply. What Big al was referring to is probably this: "I find it great for testing bookmarks to see if they work.". Somehow, even though I described a bit of VBS doing what he posted there, I fully missed the link (no pun intended) with this later "verifies the link of every bookmark" remark. Big al: My apologies. You did say it and I did miss it. Twice. Shame on me. For example, one obscure ftp site asked for a username and password, which FF had remembered, and the site then let me in So it interfaces with FF itself (and other browsers) (or in FFs case, accesses the databases directly) to retrieve those stored (and most likely encrypted, and thus needed to be decrypted) credentials ? Quite a program. On the other hand, what is the chance that the program saw the password challenge and decided that that was enough to classify the website as being alive ? Much easier. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How to sort Bookmarks (and check them)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: John He didn't miss it, he snipped it - Both. without indicating that he'd done so. When is the last time you explained why you quoted some stuff, but not other parts ? whistle I didn't say "explained", I said "indicated". When I snip a chunk, you will always see "[]" in my post. I grant that I rarely explain _why_ I've done it (I usually attempt not to change the "feeling" of the quoted post), but I always indicate that I have _done_ some snipping. But yes, I missed it - and again when I re-checked before I wrote that reply. What Big al was referring to is probably this: "I find it great for testing bookmarks to see if they work.". Somehow, even though I described a bit of VBS doing what he posted there, I fully missed the link (no pun intended) with this later "verifies the link of every bookmark" remark. Big al: My apologies. You did say it and I did miss it. Twice. Shame on me. Respect from me for that. For example, one obscure ftp site asked for a username and password, which FF had remembered, and the site then let me in So it interfaces with FF itself (and other browsers) (or in FFs case, accesses the databases directly) to retrieve those stored (and most likely encrypted, and thus needed to be decrypted) credentials ? Quite a program. No, I don't think so; in the case of that one, it reported the bookmark as having a fault, which in practice it didn't. I think it uses its own browser for the access attempts. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Can you open your mind without it falling out? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How to sort Bookmarks (and check them)
John,
I didn't say "explained", I said "indicated". Ah. I see that I interpreted that differently. When I snip a chunk, you will always see "[]" in my post. I noticed it, yes. I myself never bother with that. Though I do use "..." to indicate when I removed something from what I've quoted (embedded remarks and the like). No, I don't think so; in the case of that one, it reported the bookmark as having a fault, which in practice it didn't. Gotcha. Though I hope it formulated the error in such a way to indicate that the site itself still existed, but it could not reach the data because of not having the access rights. I think it uses its own browser for the access attempts. I doubt it (a browser I mean). Even when it actually retrieves (some) page content (and not just takes being able to make a connection as proof) there is no reason to actually parse-for-display it. Hmmm... It could, in case of a webpage, do a bit of sanity checking on the HTTP header. No browser needed for that either though. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How to sort Bookmarks (and check them)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: John, I didn't say "explained", I said "indicated". Ah. I see that I interpreted that differently. When I snip a chunk, you will always see "[]" in my post. I noticed it, yes. I myself never bother with that. Though I do use "..." to indicate when I removed something from what I've quoted (embedded remarks and the like). You hadn't, I think, in this case. No, I don't think so; in the case of that one, it reported the bookmark as having a fault, which in practice it didn't. Gotcha. Though I hope it formulated the error in such a way to indicate that the site itself still existed, but it could not reach the data because of not having the access rights. Give it (AM-DeadLink) a try. It's installation is benign - at least my installation of 4.8 over 4.7 didn't seem to involve any PUPs, and it's fairly standalone. If only for curiosity! [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|