- by Glen, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5It did take some configuring, but I expected that. Once I realized that I had to reboot the web server for changes in the config to take effect, things moved much more rapidly. :)
At this point I have converted several books from Scrapbook X, and do not plan to look back.
- by Firefox user 13116775, 2 years agoRated 2 out of 5J'avais lu sur la page wikipedia du très regretté Mozilla archive format que l'extension gérer l'enregistrement et l'ouverture des onglets en maff. La différence est que Maff enregistrait tous les onglets dans 1 fichier alors que webscrapbook enregistre chaque onglet dans des fichiers séparés. D'autres extensions font ça aussi mais ça perd tout son intérêt.
- by Janus, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5在FF上觀看儲存網頁好用的套件，
- by GarryPotter, 2 years agoRated 4 out of 5Hello. I am glad that there is an extension for new versions of Firefox and for Chrome.
Let me express your wishes: 1. Let the saved files be smaller (example: the Mozilla Archive Format extension for firefox saves https://en.lyrsen.com/simple_plan/welcome_to_my_life_sp to a file of 292 kb. And the WebScrapBook extension saves this page to a maff file size 1 869kb)
2 Let the files saved by this extension open in GoogleCrome by double-clicking the right mouse button, and not through a special dialog.
Regards - happy user.
p.s I apologize if it is not clear, English is not my native language. I am writing through an online translator.Thank you for the feedback. About your proposals: 1. You can adjust the capture options to get a less size, but most of them are at the cost of reduced faithfulness to the original web page. 2. Double-clicking the right button for commands is not supported by the WebExtension API, and is not compatible with Firefox for Android, so we simply cannot do it.
- by Firefox user 14992060, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5the author fixed a bug for firefox rel 60 esr, now it works for many users using that older firefox release bundled with many linux distributions ! this is about the only alternative that supports the legacy maf format !
- by 14802265, 2 years agoRated 2 out of 5I tried this app to save webpages completely and accurately. It works on some pages like ghacks.net perfectly with scripted single html . On other pages like nytimes.com it captures the page out of sync even though all of the content seems to be there (large gap spaces, enlarged photos, etc.) Save Page WE has the same issue. On Washingtonpost.com WebScrapbook was almost perfect but there is a bug that will add incorrect characters if there is an apostrophe in the text(which in a news article there will undoubtedly be). I used scripted single html option on this also. I do have specific scripts for the Times and WPost running, but they are not the issue since Mozilla Archive Format and SingleFile always works perfectly on the same sites with the same scripts running. But since MAF doesnt work for current browsers and SingleFile works somewhat inconsistently (it stalls a lot), I was hoping WebScrapbook would work but no go.
Also, I havent seen an option to save the original page url either in the title or in the .html file for reference like MAF, Singlefile, or SavePage WE can.
I noticed the saved webpage nytimes.com icon was used in the tab, but Webscrapbook couldnt find the icon for washingtonpost.com tab. If the developer wants to see the output files, just tell me where to forward them.
This app might be able to save websites but if it cant do it accurately what's the point of using it.Thank you for the feedback.
The issue on nytimes.com is same as the one with styled components and we are working on it (https://github.com/danny0838/webscrapbook/issues/109). It's a complicated issue as there are many things behind the scene to deal with. We almost have the solution but still need sometime to implement it, maybe next one or two revision.
I can't see an issue for washingtonpost.com, maybe it's really related with the scripts you've mentioned. Could you confirm it (by disabling your scripts and see if the issue's still there) and provide the scripts you are using, for further investigation?
The source page URL is recorded in the source code of the saved page but not shown directly. You'll be able to see it from the metadata if the backend server is used; otherwise you can see it from the source code. We are still investigating an appropriate way to present such metadata without altering the document too explictly.
As this addon site doesn't allow discussion, you can report issues to the source code repo (like the link provided above) so that we can discuss and trace them better:)
- by Firefox user 14790351, 2 years agoRated 1 out of 5Scrapbee is a better solution for users looking for a replacement for the old Scrapbook extension.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrapbee/Thank you for the feedback. It would be nicer if a good reasoning is provided, though.
ScrapBee seems to be a quick implementation of ScrapBook in WebExtension, while WebScrapBook is targeting a complete solution for web scrapbooking, and lots of improvements are implemented, such as cross-browser support, mobile support, remote backend server support, archive file support, more flexible capturing options, more flexible data structure, more portable static site index, and markdown note support, etc. Some features are not yet implemented but are on working. It'd be good to do a further investigation before making a judgement.
- by Firefox user 13095960, 3 years agoRated 5 out of 5您好，首先感谢您的辛苦工作。但是遗憾的是这款扩展和原先的scrapbookx相比，在使用便利程度和功能全面程度上都相差很多，不知道能否做一款可以实现原来的scrapbookx所有功能和界面的扩展呢？非常感谢！
您好，貌似不允许我直接对您的留言进行回复。Scrapbook X 就是您开发的是吧？我一直在用，也因此我一直没有升级为Quantum ，但最近经过尝试后发觉Quantum优点确实很多，而且以前的不少add-on都找到了替代，唯独Scrapbook X 至今没有可以比肩原先Scrapbook系列的扩展出现。诚挚希望您在时间允许的情况下能够创设出一个可以比拟原先Scrapbook X的新扩展。我在其他主流firefox 论坛上也遇到过不少用户殷切盼望这个扩展能恢复继续。再次感谢！
- by nicopopo, 3 years agoRated 3 out of 5Windows search refuses to index html documents captured with WebScrapBook unless you remove everything besides text (images, fonts, styles,scripts). I think too much crap is being collected.