I really am shocked at how useless DIIGO is. I've just spent over 40 minutes trying to save a page - and in addition find that the people who run it have never thought that people might want to save more than one page.
It is AWFUL. I thought this when they first took over Furl - which worked well. They never answered my repeated queries and despite claiming all over the internet that their 'award winning' site would preserve all your frul material it didn't. When I wrote to them about the legality of the business deal were money changed hands re contracts based on these claims they ignored it.
they should have just started their own site instead of making us waste our efforts we put into furl. i.e. our archiving was *not* preserved.
To avoid possible misunderstandings: I'm just a Diigo user, with a non-paying account.
Diigo is primarily for bookmarking, and as such, it works great. The page-saving is just a side option in Diigo, and if you want to do that systematically, there are dedicated web applications for that - e.g. http://webcitation.org .
As to saving in one go more than one page of a site, there could be serious copyright issues with that, not to mention storage.
As to the legality of the business deal between Furl and Diigo: unless you are a shareholder (and perhaps not even then), it's not a user's concern: if you choose to use any commercial non-paying non-free web application, you just have to accept the risks inherent with such a choice, and see for yourself how to limit them, e.g. by making sure you can back up your content.
As to "they should have started their own site": Diigo bought Furl in 2009, but it was launched in 2006.
started by someone1000 on 04 May 11
It is AWFUL. I thought this when they first took over Furl - which worked well. They never answered my repeated queries and despite claiming all over the internet that their 'award winning' site would preserve all your frul material it didn't. When I wrote to them about the legality of the business deal were money changed hands re contracts based on these claims they ignored it.
they should have just started their own site instead of making us waste our efforts we put into furl. i.e. our archiving was *not* preserved.
Diigo is primarily for bookmarking, and as such, it works great. The page-saving is just a side option in Diigo, and if you want to do that systematically, there are dedicated web applications for that - e.g. http://webcitation.org .
As to saving in one go more than one page of a site, there could be serious copyright issues with that, not to mention storage.
As to the legality of the business deal between Furl and Diigo: unless you are a shareholder (and perhaps not even then), it's not a user's concern: if you choose to use any commercial non-paying non-free web application, you just have to accept the risks inherent with such a choice, and see for yourself how to limit them, e.g. by making sure you can back up your content.
As to "they should have started their own site": Diigo bought Furl in 2009, but it was launched in 2006.