Upgrade StorageZotero and Google Docs
I really love Zotero. However, what I really need is that Zotero gets a seamless integration with Google docs. And it is technically possible as Paperpile and Colwiz show. Such an integration would stop me from regularly needing to ponder about moving away from Zotero to Colwiz for example.
I have read the information on the discussion page on https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/63484/google-docs/p1, but this also seems a very cumbersome solution as it already takes up so much time to understand the techical issues involved in moving all kinds of information around.
Can the Zotero development community work in this matter? I'm not technical so not able to develop such a feature. It would really make the lives of lots of people easier and Zotero even more the standard reference tool for many.
And then later on also work on integrations with for example Overleaf or Authorea ...
Kind regards
I have read the information on the discussion page on https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/63484/google-docs/p1, but this also seems a very cumbersome solution as it already takes up so much time to understand the techical issues involved in moving all kinds of information around.
Can the Zotero development community work in this matter? I'm not technical so not able to develop such a feature. It would really make the lives of lots of people easier and Zotero even more the standard reference tool for many.
And then later on also work on integrations with for example Overleaf or Authorea ...
Kind regards
This discussion has been closed.
One is the decline of Office subscriptions vis-a-vis (primarily Google) alternatives (see for example Office figures: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3162708/enterprise-applications/new-office-365-subscriptions-for-consumers-plunged-62-in-2016.html).
The other is that Google Docs is far more accessible (i.e. free) to lower income / developing world users. As Office has gone to a subscription (e.g. ongoing payments) model, it is less accessible to the scholarly community.
I echo the above comments in noting that current workflows for using Zotero with Google Docs aren't reasonable for most users.
I understand that adding this feature is no simple feat, but hope that the Zotero team will revisit it!
It's all very well encouraging us to code it ourselves, but that skill is still rather rare. In terms of the technical aspects - paperpile has shown it's doable. It might involve working more with the zotero online storage, but if I had to pay, say an extra $20 a year for the integration I would. As it stands, you're going to lose my $60 a year quite imminently.
This would be a shame as I have been evangelical about zotero for 10 years now and have even delivered a course to incoming PhD students recommending it's use and using it as a test case for CWYW during essay writing. Our institute is moving to google docs for most things now, so you can see where this is going to end...
Especially for fairly obvious but work-intensive features like google doc or iOS integration, additional votes in favor add no relevant information.
In general I prefer Zotero's forums, but Mendeley does have a nicer voter system at https://mendeley.uservoice.com/forums/4941-general for feature requests. For existing Zotero GitHub issues, you can also leave a reaction (https://github.com/blog/2119-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments).
Just a quick note about those development priorities. Frankly, I prefer open source software. I like zotero better than paperpile. But it worries me when software writers start writing software for themselves and damn the audience (as seems to be happening here). They risk their software becoming rather isolated and irrelevant.
For me, that matters when collaborating with colleagues - if I'm the one with the kooky reference management software I'm the one who is going to either slow the collaboration or needs to change to fit in with the crowd.
There is an opportunity here. From people's own submissions on this very thread there seems to be quite a large desire for this feature. You could even see a small revenue stream possible from it. But there doesn't seem to be the leadership around to drive the direction of zotero into a meaningful end point, or take note of the community feedback. In fact, there's borderline hostility on display. That's the single most worrying take home point for me from this thread.
I'll echo the community responses. The additional "me too"s specifically for Google Docs integration are certainly unnecessary -- we are very aware of the importance and benefits of having the integration. We regularly discuss the possibility of working towards it, but haven't found the time yet -- the amount of required time and knowledge of the Zotero codebase, as you yourself correctly pointed out, are significant. It's not an easy problem to approach, especially when there are many important feature requests across the whole software, and development time is very limited.
That said, we are sad if you have to leave, but Zotero is and will continue to be free (even when we get the Google Docs plugin out!), so we'll be waiting for you to come back.
(PS: Paperpile is free for me as my institution subscribes. However, I would probably pay up to the same amount personally for it as I sub to the zotero cloud storage off my own back and have done for almost as long as it has been an option).
Having people write some version of "me too" on their favorite feature requests simply doesn't add anything, creates some misplaced sense of "voting" for a feature, and ultimately wastes time -- that was my entire point here.
Maybe the problem discussed here (me-toos) is an opportunity to do something, if it is feasible in terms of time and technicality: create a list of pending features and allow users to vote. Could also include a short note or just a tag from the dev team about where Zotero is in terms of providing that feature (actively under development, high priority and planned, high priority but technical challenges, and so on). Implementing this will allow users to see their voices are tracked and counted. Closing that loop is important and I fear telling users to stop voicing their needs just comes across as bad PR (even though I accept the reason as valid).
But I agree with @gurdas , perhaps the main take home from the current thread may be the implementation of some form of voting system? That's the most solid way to avoid me-toos. Bit annoying to set up, but would help the engagement and perception of reciprocity. The trick would then be not having 18 subjects about basically the same feature, I suppose.
It's also a less qualitative method and less prone to confirmation bias, PR issues etc, etc.
Cheers :)
I predict that unless Zotero makes their implementation of a Google Docs link their number 1 top priority, they will find themselves relegated soon to sit on a dying branch as the up and coming new generation of citing report writers will go elsewhere from the start and never consider Zotero later.
He who brings an open source and affordable citation manager that works perfectly in Google Docs will carry the market. Period.
It is sad to witness here that the Zotero team is seemingly not understanding what is at stake for them. It would be sad if this wonderful tool Zotero was becoming irrelevant by their own misinterpretation of what is happening in the field of document creation from the schools up. The MS-Office suite is simply collecting dust in the school's systems by now, and soon the admins will consider stopping licensing it.
So sorry for this me-too ask for making the Google Docs - Zotero plug in your #1 priority but I see otherwise dark clouds on the Zotero horizon.
Yes, a lot of us would like to use Google Docs, but it is still relatively "easy/stupid" text editor and in the family of Open Access text tools is not the best. If you can use any OA tool then you can use Libre Office with the full support of Zotero.
Dou you really need work on a cloud or Google Docs? Then you can use Zotero-ODF-Scan.
From my point of view (I am not developer Zotero, only user) I need features focused on bibliography management. Cooperation with text tools is nice, but not priority no 1, due to reference output formatting in the text document is a part of postprocessing of publication.
Google Docs has a native referencing facility, but as you have probably noticed, it's not very good. Google excels at automating things that invite automation, but the firm has an allergy to the labor-intensive fine-tuning needed to produce and maintain a research-quality reference management platform.
Paperpile interfaces with Google Docs, which is great. Their platform and its interface lives in the cloud, which may be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your needs. I see that PP has adopted the Jurisdiction field on legal item types (a Juris-M first!). That's good (for legal users...), but among the four export formats, this and other extended fields are lost in BibTeX and RIS. The field comes through in CSV and JSON exports, but in both cases the format of the export is unique to PaperPile. Whether that limitation is a problem depends on what you're planning to store in it, and at what volume.
Zotero has strong facilities for organization and rediscovery of content, and it excels at both import and export, supporting several standard formats (RDF, MODS) that are less lossy than BibTeX or RIS. Zotero can be used offline, which for many users is a critical advantage. It is awkward to use with Google Docs at present, so if you need that, another tool may be a better choice. But no tool with the strengths, dynamism and long-running track record of Zotero is going to go away any time soon.
No idea how much effort is required to provide the Google Docs functionality, but I would like to believe (and I might be wrong) that there are enough Zotero users who need this feature and are willing to contribute a few dollars so a tool could be developed. Maybe optimistic and naive, but worth a try? 1000 users who need this, each gives $5 = $5000 good enough to get the ball rolling?
Obviously, Zotero team is not directly involved except providing technical go ahead to the independent developer. This is an effort of/by/for the community.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a very tricky issue and getting it wrong can cause serious irritations among all involved.