You are certainly correct, but at this point, separating out articles from so many historical archives would require a budget of at LEAST $100k. Plus, a feasible workflow would need to be available as they don’t neatly start and end on separate pages, and scan quality varies dramatically.
I am super thankful for what Devonthink brings to the table, however, over what is available anywhere else, as it does make the process of research far easier despite the hindrances of multi-topic files.
Incidentally, this syntax does work successfully, but only for PDFs. I’m told the next maintenance update will fix it across rtf/txt as well.
Working simple example:
If you want to search for second, but not second coming or second advent:
second (NOT(second NEXT/2 (coming) OR (advent)))
Working complex example:
If you want to search for the term late, but NOT “late 18th century” or “late 1880s”, etc.:
late (NOT(late NEXT/2 (centur*) OR [12]???s))
Working phrase Example:
If you want to search for “Devonthink is” but not “Devonthink is a” in the manual:
“devonthink is” NOT (devonthink NEAR/3 a)
“devonthink is” (NOT(Devonthink NEAR/3 a))
What will NOT work / unsupported syntax:
“devonthink is” (NOT “devonthink is a”)
“devonthink is” NOT “devonthink is a”
Now, does the syntax for that last non-working example work sometimes? Yes.
Is this inconsistent? absolutely.
So who knows how many false negatives are occurring with the other working examples!
This probably suggests another bug somewhere, but I’m glad for what works some of the time.
