Flock first impressions: problems with bookmarks - and a workaround

I just installed Flock, the new Firefox-based social web browser on my computer and had a moment to take a look what it has to offer. I won't go into details since many others have reviewed it elaborately already. I'll just say that with nicely integrated viewing and posting to Flickr (a Yahoo service), synchronizing favorites (they are not bookmarks as I'll explain below) with del.icio.us (another Yahoo service), and easy blog posting to a set of blog services gives a first impression that Flock would be a nicely designed system that offers a no-hassle set of basic yet important tools for the modern people of the web2 era.

As said I haven't used Flock many hours but it was not needed to run into a major problem. Or at least I though so at first.

The problem, as it seemed to me, was that when Flock imported my (couple of thousand) bookmarks which I've carefully organized into folders and subfolders with all kinds of separators and everything (even the order of the bookmarks is important to me) Flock simply dumped all of the folders into one level thus loosing the fine-tuned hierarchy that I had built over the years.

As if this wasn't enough I soon after realized that even though Flock browser is based on Firefox Flock favorites don't support
1) keywords (which you can use as shortcuts in firefox, which I use probably at least 75% of the time when navigate the web) and
2) just as bad, it seemed that it didn't have quick search strings either.

On top of these two deficiencies Flock also had major problems with the amount of bookmarks I fed it: Opening the favorites manager [*] made Flock unresponsive for minutes. As the favorite manager was useless for deleting the favorites the next easiest way to get rid of them was to remove the Flock favorite file (flock_favorites.rdf) from the Flock profile folder [*] (Flock seems to recreate a new empty favorites file on startup if the file is missing).

Naturally I was a bit surprised and not very happy about this discovery. After all one major issue in Flock was supposed to be the handling of bookmarks/favorites. A little searching at Flock forums proved that I wasn't alone with my problem. Flock has acknowledged users needs (sic!) but there's still no official solution for the bookmark issue(s).

For my needs I came up with a work-around, which might also be useful for other Firefox users (or Opera, or whatever proper browser that has keywords or even quick search capabilities) who would like to try out Flock but who don't want to leave behind their bookmarks. The quick fix builds on the point that even though Flock has built is own (poor) favorite system it still has the Firefox bookmarks integrated. It struck me when jsuplido commented that he had found out the address of the bookmarks manager [*] to manage the the quick searches. So I learned that Flock actually does have quick searches just like Firefox, which makes sense. It just stores them in the bookmarks.html file in stead of the Flock favorites file, since the favorites lack the keyword field.

Now, since Flock has reinvented the bookmarks by naming the bookmarks favorites (like Microsoft has called them for years) and by dumping keywords (i.e. shortcuts)--one of the most useful little innovations in the history of bookmarks, I say--it's no wonder that Flock doesn't tout the possibility to use the PlainOldBookmarks even though they're built in the system.

But jsuplido reveiled that you can bring up the bookmarks manager by just typing chrome://browser/content/bookmarks/bookmarksManager.xul into the address bar (after which you can make it a favorite into the favorite toolbar).

To wrap up the issue I just needed to really import my Firefox bookmarks into Flock -- and not just corruptingly convert them into Flock favorites.

The easiest way to dd this was to simply copy Firefox's bookmarks.html file from Firefox profile folder [*] and paste it over Flock's bookmark.html file in the Flock profile folder [*] (when Flock is not running I suggest). And then run Flock. Now all my Firefox bookmarks are nicely in Flock and I can easily manually add to Flock favorites the ones I want to have online or share with others. AND most importantly I can continue using my bookmark keywords and quick searches as ever before.

Problem solved!

EDIT: Flock's blog posting tool does seem to be in need of at least some recaliberation. That is I'm blaming Flock for the uneven line spacing of the post :)

---

[i] Flock favorites manager: chrome://browser/content/flock/favorites/favoritesManager.xul
[ii] Flock bookmarks manager: chrome://browser/content/bookmarks/bookmarksManager.xul

The profile folder paths (in my system) are:
[iii]C:\Documents and Settings\[user]\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\6uoj5qc5.default
[iv] C:\Documents and Settings\[user]\Application Data\Flock\Browser\Profiles\wxz8e1w1.default

technorati tags:english, digital-life, commentary, rants, software, socialweb

Blogged with Flock

Mobile Opportunity: European vs. American mobile phone use

Michael Mace writes a very interesting post about the differences between
European vs. American mobile phone use.

Here's my comment to the post:

Thanks for the excellent post, Michael, and all commenters for an excellent discussion. A few comments about the American cellphone usage and industry from a European users perspective.

Having lived a few years in the US the biggest surprises to me have been
- coverage,
- paying for incoming calls and the impact that I think that has had to the phone usage culture,
- the ignorance of technical issues concerning the phones and the networks of BOTH users as well as the people working for the industry (phone sales & carriers' personnel).

COVERAGE

As everyone knows the coverage in the US is not nearly as good as in Europe. And as noted here it's often blamed on the smaller population densities or the mere size of the country. This is only a tip of the iceberg, I'd say. I think it's more of an issue about the general mentality of I presume just about all parties involved. I'll give you two examples.

The CEO of Verizon Wireless criticized the customers of Verizon quite harshly some two or three years ago for wanting cell coverage in unbelievable places such as garages etc. I could still probably find the article I saved someplace about his outburst. But anyway, this showed and unbelievable attitude from the number 1 carrier in the US that advertises to have the best coverage in the country.

Interestingly the other (practical) example about coverage concerns Verizon, too, but also the authorities. The example is DC metro system. I find it funny that in this free market-economy bosting country the mobile coverage in all of the DC metro system tunnels has been given solely to one company, Verizon. And guess what: it doesn't work! You usually get a decent signal at the stations but don't dream about talking in the metro throughout your ride. I had a Verizon phone only for the metro 'connectivity' for almost a year but gave it up in frustation.
Who's to blame? Not only Verizon Wireless but just as much the DC officials for making such a monopoly deal in the first place and then not beeing able to even get good coverage with that. In all European cities that I've visited you get good signal of various mobile operators throughout the metro systems.

PAYING FOR INCOMING CALLS

This was commented already, but I just wanted to add that I've gotten quite strongly the impression that this has been a major issue for people not to get addicted to their cell phones or even use them.

Tomi mentioned connectivity. Not sure how he defines it but I feel that because it's the same price to call to all numbers, fixed or mobile, the general public hasn't understood the value of connectivity.

Also the people who have had cell phones have seen an additional downside of connectivity (there are number of downsides as we all now) compared to the Europeans - losing their minutes, that is. To this date I haven't understood why should the cell phone owner pay for incoming calls when in fact the caller has something so important in mind that s/he wants to reach the person.

The result of all this: at least two-three years ago people were simply not giving out their mobile numbers, where not keeping the phones with them, had them turned off, or were simply not answering them because they didn't want to loose their minutes. Cell phones were, and partially are still seen as simply pagers. Listen to the voicemail whereever and return to the call from a fixed line. I've seen this be more or less the behaviour of surprisingly many.

IGNORANCE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES

For final comment I just want to say how surprised I've been about level of technical knowledge related to cellphones, not of the users which is understanable, but of pretty much all the people working for the industry.

It seems that most of the cell phone sales personnel that I've talked with - and I've talked with quite a few - haven't even known if their network is GSM, CDMA or TDMA. It seems that it's changed a bit in a year or so, but I think it's quite stunning that not even the T-mobile or AT&T sales personnel knew that they where selling GSM phones. No wonder people don't understand what liberties GSM gives them!

Too bad the ignorance doesn't stop at sales personnel. It's really not much better with the carriers' staff. I understand that the generalists in the customer care can't know everything. But when they've never heard of MMS, don't know if their phones can be unlocked, don't have a slightest idea what are the technical differences of their data packages, just to mention a few, I'm giving up.

It's naturally an egg and a chicken dilemma. The customers don't ask about the technical issues because they haven't ever been told any. And the carriers don't tell pretty much any technical details because the customers don't ask for any.

But in a country that uses a number of different technologies which all have their special features it gets everybody into trouble.

Thanks again for the excellent post and discussion!

--

I forgot to mention that another great problem in my opinion in the US mobile industry is the way they're packaging services. The pricing plans are very often not that good for people who'd either want to just try out the service or use it only every once in a while.

Like with T-mobile data service: it's either $30/month unlimited - or nothing! There's no way to just enable the service, without or with a low monthly price, and only pay for the data transferred. The same mentality is seen in many other areas and other carriers, too.

Like with Cingular if you want to be priviliged to make dirt expensive phone calls with your GSM phone while you travel you have to pay a monthly fee for that.
Now, how much does it make sense to pay even twenty bucks a year to have the privilige to pay shitloads more for the calls - especially in the time of various VoIP services.

It's really no wonder that Europe is ahead of US in innovation and how users are learning to use new services.