Final update: Missing annotation responses never appeared.

No single bookmarked page ever got over 200 annotations. Is 200 a limit for annotations + responses per page?

This seems like a bug and it seems like it would be easily reproducible for testing:

Have 2-3 people annotate the same Web page.
Invite them all to a group.
Have them share their annotations for that same page with the group.
Then have them write responses to other members' annotations.
See if the total number can go above 200 without losing annotation responses.

If the above clears testing just fine, add this wrinkle: Do the same for multiple groups who are all annotating and responding to the same Web page. One member (i.e. the teacher) is in ALL groups and shares his annotations with each of the multiple groups. Perhaps the bug surfaces when one member is in multiple groups and is writing annotation responses to multiple groups on the same Web page (however, more than just my comments were lost--students' responses disappeared too).

The usage pattern I describe above is exactly what we're looking for in terms of using technology in high school English classrooms. Please investigate and resolve the situation so that we can use your site in our lessons!

"However, we don't allow editing of URL for the following reason: although allowing changing URL is very simple, because of Diigo's unique ability to annotate on webpages and those are specific to URLs, offering the options to allow users to edit the URL will potentially lead to unexpected complication."


Of course that's a risk, but the decision still doesn't make sense. Consider the possible outcomes:

1. User correctly edits a URL that has moved (where the original URL is no longer valid); orphaned annotations are moved to the updated URL.

2. User incorrectly edits a URL that has moved (where the original URL is no longer valid); orphaned annotations are still orphaned--but due to the moved URL, those annotations were already orphaned anyway. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

3. User correctly edits a URL that was already working just fine; annotations are still good.

4. User incorrectly edits a URL that was already working just fine; orphans his/her annotations.

EDITABLE scenario summary:
1. orphaned - > properly linked (good)
2. orphaned - > stays orphaned (neutral, but can be fixed)
3. properly linked - > properly linked (neutral)
4. properly linked - > orphaned (BAD, but fixable)

There are only four scenarios and only ONE of the four results in orphaned annotations due to user error. And even in that one bad scenario, the user can always go back and correct the URL to undo the problem.

As the current system works (editing URLs not possible), you GUARANTEE that annotations connected to a URL that is no longer valid get orphaned:

1. Site changes URL, rendering bookmarked URL obsolete; annotations get orphaned.
2. Site adds an additional URL while the original URL is still usable; annotations remain properly linked.

NOT-EDITABLE scenario summary:
1. orphaned - > stay orphaned (BAD--no solution in current system)
2. properly linked - > properly linked (neutral)

Therefore your conservative approach to user data (don't let them screw up their own URLs) doesn't really make sense when you consider the worst-case scenarios of each possibility.

Bump!! Editing a URL is a necessary feature!!

I annotated an article whose URL was subsequently moved to their "/archive/" directory. The original URL gets redirected to the "/archive/" URL, but of course my annotations do not follow to the new, permanent URL.

This is a SIMPLE feature request that would make the site way more robust and usable!

The fact that it was requested almost three years ago tells me that maybe I should stop bothering with this site and just give up on it entirely. I love the concept and I love how you've implemented your features--but there are too many unacceptable "gotchas" right now.