From tomthumb at tom.com Sun Apr 2 15:24:36 2006 From: tomthumb at tom.com (tomthumb@tom.com) Date: Sun Apr 2 01:25:22 2006 Subject: [Slogger] Missing Profiles from Fresh Installation for Slogger v0.6.20060328.1 In-Reply-To: <4429BF85.2070708@mit.edu> References: <005c01c64e90$4cb31620$8e01a8c0@FUAJ2.local> <4429BF85.2070708@mit.edu> Message-ID: <20060402141838.465A.TOMTHUMB@tom.com> Dear Ken, > I made a change to the newest version online so that slogger by default > will use a folder (for profiles and data) that won't be wiped out on > upgrading slogger. However, if you're already setup from a previous > version, your files would still be in a dangerous spot. Sorry, it's a > bit of a mess (although not as bad if you're starting from a fresh > slogger install) I'll try to put some of this info in an FAQ. There's > a brief description of the different directories slogger uses there, > http://www.kenschutte.com/slogger/faq.php > > (Also, I put the slogger menu within the "Tools" menu...) > I, too, have frequently been plagued by the "disappearing profile" bug whenever I upgraded. Now that this issue has been clarified, I uninstalled the previous version and cleaned up my prefs.js as per your instructions. Then I installed the latest Slogger v0.6.20060328.1. However, as with a few of the previous versions, I find that the following profiles are missing when I restarted Firefox (1.5.0.1): # XML log & complete pages # Test Slogger Variables This is not the first time it has happened. I've encountered this strange anomaly with a few previous versions. Can you help? Thanks. Regards. -- Salt and sugar are not equal; they may sometimes look very similar but they do not taste the same. I cook, and I can tell you, they are both necessary. But the cook who assumes they are interchangeable is not therefore a better cook. From jrublesk at syr.edu Thu Apr 6 18:30:32 2006 From: jrublesk at syr.edu (Joe Rubleske) Date: Thu Apr 6 19:45:21 2006 Subject: [Slogger] Can't find local saved files Message-ID: Hello. Newbie question, most likely, though I did look through past threads but no luck. Edited my setting (HTML log (Personal)) to enable save pages (chose a folder on my desktop, w/o specifying any variables, if it matters). Kept the log file as-is (default folder and file name). When I open my sloggerLog I can see that the web page titles are being logged. It'll say, e.g., "Yahoo! Sports..." (i.e., the page I went to), but the hyperlink to the local file (presumably saved) instead sends me to a "no file exists at this address" page. Are the web pages being saved or not? Apologies if this is a no-brainer, but I can't figure it out. I hope to use Slogger to build a corpus of pages for research on web genres, so I hope I can resolve this and learn to use the tool better. Thanks, Joe R. From kschutte at mit.edu Sat Apr 8 14:55:35 2006 From: kschutte at mit.edu (Ken Schutte) Date: Sat Apr 8 13:55:26 2006 Subject: [Slogger] Can't find local saved files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4437F917.1050102@mit.edu> It's not a no-brainer - it's a confusing way which in which the log file and saved pages interact (or fail to). When you changed the save dir, the log file still pointing to the old location. There are several ways to deal with this, none very obvious... If you go to Edit Profile->Log File->Content tab, you could look edit the html code that's there, and replace the link ( Hello. Newbie question, most likely, though I did look through past > threads but no luck. Edited my setting (HTML log (Personal)) to enable > save pages (chose a folder on my desktop, w/o specifying any variables, > if it matters). Kept the log file as-is (default folder and file name). > > When I open my sloggerLog I can see that the web page titles are being > logged. It'll say, e.g., "Yahoo! Sports..." (i.e., the page I went to), > but the hyperlink to the local file (presumably saved) instead sends me > to a "no file exists at this address" page. Are the web pages being > saved or not? > > Apologies if this is a no-brainer, but I can't figure it out. I hope to > use Slogger to build a corpus of pages for research on web genres, so I > hope I can resolve this and learn to use the tool better. > > Thanks, > Joe R. > > _______________________________________________ > Slogger mailing list > Slogger@mozdev.org > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/slogger From tomthumb at tom.com Mon Apr 10 01:34:14 2006 From: tomthumb at tom.com (tomthumb@tom.com) Date: Sun Apr 9 12:35:05 2006 Subject: [Slogger] RePost: Missing Profiles from Fresh Installation for Slogger v0.6.20060328.1 - Would appreciate help. Thanks. In-Reply-To: <4429BF85.2070708@mit.edu> References: <005c01c64e90$4cb31620$8e01a8c0@FUAJ2.local> <4429BF85.2070708@mit.edu> Message-ID: <20060410003319.F436.TOMTHUMB@tom.com> Dear Ken, > I made a change to the newest version online so that slogger by default > will use a folder (for profiles and data) that won't be wiped out on > upgrading slogger. However, if you're already setup from a previous > version, your files would still be in a dangerous spot. Sorry, it's a > bit of a mess (although not as bad if you're starting from a fresh > slogger install) I'll try to put some of this info in an FAQ. There's > a brief description of the different directories slogger uses there, > http://www.kenschutte.com/slogger/faq.php > > (Also, I put the slogger menu within the "Tools" menu...) > I, too, have frequently been plagued by the "disappearing profile" bug whenever I upgraded. Now that this issue has been clarified, I uninstalled the previous version and cleaned up my prefs.js as per your instructions. Then I installed the latest Slogger v0.6.20060328.1. However, as with a few of the previous versions, I find that the following profiles are missing when I restarted Firefox (1.5.0.1): # XML log & complete pages # Test Slogger Variables This is not the first time it has happened. I've encountered this strange anomaly with a few previous versions. Can you help? Thanks. Regards. -- Salt and sugar are not equal; they may sometimes look very similar but they do not taste the same. I cook, and I can tell you, they are both necessary. But the cook who assumes they are interchangeable is not therefore a better cook.