Janet Wilder > wrote in
on Oct Sun 2009 02:31 pm

> isw wrote:
>> In article >, "l, not -l"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3-Oct-2009, The Cook > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just downloaded recipefox-0.33.xpi
>>>>
>>>> Any problems I should look out for or just click on it follow the
>>>> prompts?
>>>>
>>>> I am getting tired of having to go to IE to move recipes to MC.
>>> Assuming you are using FireFox, you might want to look at the
>>> RecipeFox add-in. When it works, its a great tool; but, like many
>>> FireFox add-ins, when new releases of FireFox come out, it quits
>>> working. If you use a version of FireFox it likes, it's a nice
>>> tool.
>>
>> MacGourmet can use OS X "services" to input recipes from most
>> sources, but Firefox doesn't do services. I just keep MacGourmet's
>> "Clippings" window open behind Firefox, highlight a recipe, and drag
>> it over to M-G. Would that work with MasterCook? Or if not
>> drag-n-drop, how about highlight-copy-paste?
>>
>> Isaac
>
> Copy and paste works perfectly using Mastercook's "import assisntant"
> tool.
>

NYC has a similar tool for importing recipes.

With all the free updates the calorie counter and nutrition info is more current in NYC than in MC as
NYC updates to the most current USDA database...the USDA nutritional database changes a couple
times a year as it includes more and more entries. Plus the usual menu planner and Shopping lists
and weight watcher points.

The shopping list can tell you which aisle stuff is in as well as current price if you bother to fill that
stuff in as well as keep track of your coupons.

--
Is that your nose, or are you eatting a banana? -Jimmy Durante

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:09:36 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 03 Oct 2009 08:40:28p, Ron told us...
>
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT), aem >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 2, 9:22 pm, Ron > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> MasterCook seems to be the most used program for recipes. May or may
>>>> not be the best, but it sure ranks up near the top.
>>>>
>>>I don't use it but this does seem to be the case based on responses in
>>>this thread. They leave unanswered the crucial question that keeps me
>>>from using any such software. Then again, it's a hardware issue, I
>>>guess. Namely, what do I do with the kitchen drawer that is full of
>>>clippings from newspapers and magazines and typed pages of recipes?
>>>Not to mention all the writings in the margins of cookbooks? -aem
>>
>> Well, no matter which recipe program you use, you will have to enter
>> recipes from clippings or magazines and the handwritten notes in the
>> margin of cookbooks by hand. Most recipe programs will import recipes
>> from other recipe programs, but I know of none that will import
>> directly from a scanned image of a recipe.
>>
>> We use MasterCook to enter recipes we like particularly well and plan
>> to make again. With a bookcase full of cookbooks, it's too much
>> trouble to try to remember which book has a particular recipe. Also,
>> with MasterCook, or any recipe program, it's easy to make changes as
>> you adjust the recipe to your taste, and you end up with a clean copy
>> if you want to print out a page. The search and sort functions are
>> also very useful.
>>
>> True, it's a convenience not a necessity. And it would be quite a
>> task to type in a drawer full of clippings and typed pages of recipes.
>> Depends on how patient you are and how many you try to type in at one
>> sitting. :-)
>>
>> Ron Kelley
>>
>
>Many hardcopy rcipes can be scanned, then converted into text using OCR
>software. The text copy can then be pasted into the Import Assistant in
>MasterCook.

Oh, darn. Now I've got to go out and buy an OCR.

Ron Kelley

In article > ,
"madis" > wrote:

> I want to enter my recipes into a program. Which one is the most used and
> liked? I dont want to have to redo it if I find out what I'm using isnt the
> best.
>
> Thanks for your help/input

The best one is the one you like most. Compare features and decide
which are most important and will be of most value to you. I use a Mac
app I'm not nuts about (MacGourmet) but has been well-rated by lots of
people. I prefer MasterCook Mac but it's outdated and no longer
available from its owners. :-(
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

In article >,
Janet Wilder > wrote:

> isw wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dave S > wrote:
> >
> >> Notepad
> >
> > There are a lot of problems trying to use any sort of text editor or
> > word processor for recipes.
> >
> > For entering single recipes, they're OK; where they fail (as do
> > "standard" database programs) is handling a recipe collection,
> > especially one of any size.
> >
> > None of them understand the difference between an ingredient and a
> > procedure. None can handle categories well (cheese, beans, Italian, main
> > dish, appetizer, starch, crockpot, ...). None can do effective searches
> > through a collection of recipes. None understand linking recipes (every
> > recipe that calls for, say, Bernaise sauce linking to the Bernaise
> > recipe), which is also useful in reverse: "I really want some Bernaise
> > sauce; what can I pour it over?" And on and on.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> I dunno. I can search for a single recipe throughout my cook book
> collection on Master cook. I can even enter an item like "chicken
> breasts" and it will find me recipes in several cookbooks.
>
> As far as linking the sauce, Mastercook has the ability to "embed" a
> recipe in another recipe. If I want to make asparagus with hollandaise
> sauce, I can embed the sauce recipe into the asparagus recipe. I
> consider that as a link. Maybe others do not.
>
> Mastercook has many tricks and most people aren't aware of them. I am
> still learning some of the tricks and I've had the program in 3 versions
> for over 14 years.

Well, MC is *specialized for recipes*; it's not even close to what I was
talking about: a text editor or word processor.

Isaac

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> isw wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dave S > wrote:
> >
> >> Notepad
> >
> > There are a lot of problems trying to use any sort of text editor or
> > word processor for recipes.
> >
> > For entering single recipes, they're OK; where they fail (as do
> > "standard" database programs) is handling a recipe collection,
> > especially one of any size.
> >
> > None of them understand the difference between an ingredient and a
> > procedure. None can handle categories well (cheese, beans, Italian, main
> > dish, appetizer, starch, crockpot, ...). None can do effective searches
> > through a collection of recipes. None understand linking recipes (every
> > recipe that calls for, say, Bernaise sauce linking to the Bernaise
> > recipe), which is also useful in reverse: "I really want some Bernaise
> > sauce; what can I pour it over?" And on and on.
> >
> > Isaac
>
>
> I use my *brain* to handle the understanding part. I'm not being
> sarcastic. The recipe files just hold the detailed information in a
> sharable format. The categories are handled by having 5 or 6
> directories (folders). If a recipe fits in more than one category, you
> can create symbolic links (shortcuts).

Try finding all your recipes that use tomatoes and pork and use a
crockpot.

Isaac

isw wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>> I use my *brain* to handle the understanding part. I'm not being
>> sarcastic. The recipe files just hold the detailed information in a
>> sharable format. The categories are handled by having 5 or 6
>> directories (folders). If a recipe fits in more than one category, you
>> can create symbolic links (shortcuts).
>
> Try finding all your recipes that use tomatoes and pork and use a
> crockpot.
>
> Isaac


That's an easy one. I have no recipes with that combination.

Bob

zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:47:14 -0500:

> isw wrote:
>> In article >,
>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>>> I use my *brain* to handle the understanding part. I'm not being
>>> sarcastic. The recipe files just hold the detailed
>>> information in a sharable format. The categories are
>>> handled by having 5 or 6 directories (folders). If a recipe
>>> fits in more than one category, you can create symbolic
>>> links (shortcuts).
>>
>> Try finding all your recipes that use tomatoes and pork and
>> use a crockpot.
>>
>> Isaac

> That's an easy one. I have no recipes with that combination.

If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop and my
recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of it, I got all of
mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in nothing flat.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:47:14 -0500:
>
> > isw wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> zxcvbob > wrote:
> >>> I use my *brain* to handle the understanding part. I'm not being
> >>> sarcastic. The recipe files just hold the detailed
> >>> information in a sharable format. The categories are
> >>> handled by having 5 or 6 directories (folders). If a recipe
> >>> fits in more than one category, you can create symbolic
> >>> links (shortcuts).
> >>
> >> Try finding all your recipes that use tomatoes and pork and
> >> use a crockpot.
> >>
> >> Isaac
>
> > That's an easy one. I have no recipes with that combination.
>
> If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop and my
> recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of it, I got all of
> mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in nothing flat.

As the number of recipes in a collection grows, the need for some sort
of organized index gets more important. If you have to search a few
thousand files every time you want to find a certain combination of
ingredients or whatever, things get a little slow. At the very least, a
true data base app is needed, for efficiency.

Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring "tomatoes"
mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the notes?

Isaac

In article ]>,
isw > wrote:

> In article >,
> "James Silverton" > wrote:

> > If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop and my
> > recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of it, I got all of
> > mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in nothing flat.
>
> As the number of recipes in a collection grows, the need for some sort
> of organized index gets more important. If you have to search a few
> thousand files every time you want to find a certain combination of
> ingredients or whatever, things get a little slow. At the very least, a
> true data base app is needed, for efficiency.

I'm retired now, but I used to do a lot of work with databases. They
are wonderful, when you have lots of people hitting the data pretty
often, and at the same time. There's a lot of overhead and expense,
though. If a clumsy search through files will do the job, and "the job"
happens once or twice a week, maybe a true database is overkill.

> Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring "tomatoes"
> mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the notes?

Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no database.
Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain as the search engine,
can easily ignore any recipes that don't have "tomato" as an ingredient.
Let's face it, just how many recipes would have "tomato" in the title,
procedure or notes; but not as an ingredient?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article ]>,
isw > wrote:

> One reason I want to have all the "good" recipes in a database on the
> 'puter is so I can easily share them (one click e-mail), and also make
> sure that each of my kids gets copies of all the ones they like. A few
> years after I'd left home, my mom gave me a loose-leaf notebook holding
> dozens of family recipes. For years, whenever I'd call to ask how to
> prepare something, she'd tell me and then a few days later, the mail
> would bring another page for that notebook. I want to do the same for my
> kids, but I'm not about to hand write that much stuff (my mom made three
> copies, one for each of her kids).
>
> Isaac

Isaac, I hope you will take the time to write out the favorites for your
kids‹at least some of them. There's something very tender in having a
recipe handwritten by someone you've loved. I treasure those I have in
my mom's hand. She was not well educated and her writing was a hoot‹she
began a letter with a capital letter and ended it with a period. In
between, you were pretty much on your own to decipher it. I'd give a
lot to have her write a recipe out for me. Alex rest her soul.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article ]>,
> isw > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "James Silverton" > wrote:
>
> > > If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop and my
> > > recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of it, I got all of
> > > mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in nothing flat.
> >
> > As the number of recipes in a collection grows, the need for some sort
> > of organized index gets more important. If you have to search a few
> > thousand files every time you want to find a certain combination of
> > ingredients or whatever, things get a little slow. At the very least, a
> > true data base app is needed, for efficiency.
>
> I'm retired now, but I used to do a lot of work with databases. They
> are wonderful, when you have lots of people hitting the data pretty
> often, and at the same time. There's a lot of overhead and expense,
> though.

Actually, I think not so much; see below.

> If a clumsy search through files will do the job, and "the job"
> happens once or twice a week, maybe a true database is overkill.

Perhaps. But OS X comes with an industrial-strength one (one of the SQL
variants) installed and already in use for Address Book, Calendar, and
the mail client (probably other apps too; I don' know). So when somebody
wants to write a recipe program for a Mac, it makes perfect sense to use
it -- and MacGourmet does. And I use it far more than "once or twice a
week", though if it were more difficult to get what I want from it, I
probably would not.

> > Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring "tomatoes"
> > mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the notes?
>
> Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no database.
> Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain as the search engine,
> can easily ignore any recipes that don't have "tomato" as an ingredient.
> Let's face it, just how many recipes would have "tomato" in the title,
> procedure or notes; but not as an ingredient?

My bad example doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make -- any
generic search through a bunch of files can't discriminate between
various subsections within each file where the data lies (ingredient
list or procedure or notes or whatever).

And I thought of another couple of problems for recipes stored as a
bunch of "Word" files: Can you easily scale recipes to different numbers
of servings? Or prepare shopping lists to get everything you need for a
week's worth of recipes?

Isaac

In article >,
Melba's Jammin' > wrote:

> In article ]>,
> isw > wrote:
>
> > One reason I want to have all the "good" recipes in a database on the
> > 'puter is so I can easily share them (one click e-mail), and also make
> > sure that each of my kids gets copies of all the ones they like. A few
> > years after I'd left home, my mom gave me a loose-leaf notebook holding
> > dozens of family recipes. For years, whenever I'd call to ask how to
> > prepare something, she'd tell me and then a few days later, the mail
> > would bring another page for that notebook. I want to do the same for my
> > kids, but I'm not about to hand write that much stuff (my mom made three
> > copies, one for each of her kids).
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Isaac, I hope you will take the time to write out the favorites for your
> kids‹at least some of them.

My kids literally grew up using computers (our son damaged a mouse cord
teething on it); keeping random pieces of paper around is completely
outside their experience. My daughter regularly asks me to scan recipes
for her.

Plus, if you could see what passes for my handwriting, you'd probably
change your mind right quick. 8^}

Isaac

Dan wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:22:02 -0700:

>> In article >,
>> "James Silverton" > wrote:

> >> If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop
> >> and my recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of
> >> it, I got all of mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in
> >> nothing flat.
>>
>> As the number of recipes in a collection grows, the need for
>> some sort of organized index gets more important. If you have
>> to search a few thousand files every time you want to find a
>> certain combination of ingredients or whatever, things get a
>> little slow. At the very least, a true data base app is
>> needed, for efficiency.

> I'm retired now, but I used to do a lot of work with
> databases. They are wonderful, when you have lots of people
> hitting the data pretty often, and at the same time. There's
> a lot of overhead and expense, though. If a clumsy search
> through files will do the job, and "the job" happens once or
> twice a week, maybe a true database is overkill.

>> Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring
>> "tomatoes" mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the
>> notes?

> Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no
> database. Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain
> as the search engine, can easily ignore any recipes that don't
> have "tomato" as an ingredient. Let's face it, just how many
> recipes would have "tomato" in the title, procedure or notes;
> but not as an ingredient?

Google Desktop is essentially pre-sorted and is thus almost
instantaneous. I can't see why I'd want to know all recipes that don't
have "tomato" but I could get them with simply "- tomato". A more
restrictive sort like the example I gave, tomato + jicama + celery,
seems a more likely thing to do.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton said...

> Dan wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:22:02 -0700:
>
>>> In article >,
>>> "James Silverton" > wrote:
>
>> >> If I really wanted them, I could search with Google Desktop
>> >> and my recipe files are just MS Word. Just for the heck of
>> >> it, I got all of mine with cucumber + jicama + celery in
>> >> nothing flat.
>>>
>>> As the number of recipes in a collection grows, the need for
>>> some sort of organized index gets more important. If you have
>>> to search a few thousand files every time you want to find a
>>> certain combination of ingredients or whatever, things get a
>>> little slow. At the very least, a true data base app is
>>> needed, for efficiency.
>
>> I'm retired now, but I used to do a lot of work with
>> databases. They are wonderful, when you have lots of people
>> hitting the data pretty often, and at the same time. There's
>> a lot of overhead and expense, though. If a clumsy search
>> through files will do the job, and "the job" happens once or
>> twice a week, maybe a true database is overkill.
>
>>> Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring
>>> "tomatoes" mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the
>>> notes?
>
>> Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no
>> database. Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain
>> as the search engine, can easily ignore any recipes that don't
>> have "tomato" as an ingredient. Let's face it, just how many
>> recipes would have "tomato" in the title, procedure or notes;
>> but not as an ingredient?
>
> Google Desktop is essentially pre-sorted and is thus almost
> instantaneous. I can't see why I'd want to know all recipes that don't
> have "tomato" but I could get them with simply "- tomato". A more
> restrictive sort like the example I gave, tomato + jicama + celery,
> seems a more likely thing to do.


I've got recipes semi-isolated in three places. cookbooks, text files (from
rfc recipe snippages) and allrecipes.com.

On allrecipes.com, you got a "recipe box" you can save their recipes into,
it lets you search recipes with AND without ingredients and you can
generate shopping lists that you can edit to remove items you already have
in stock to print out. I do snip the allrecipes recipes I like to text
files and add them to my recipes folder that reside both on the laptop and
the iPhone.

I like having all the text file recipes on the iPhone just for kicks, not
that it's proven useful.

There are hundreds of recipe managers for the iPhone but I'm not going to
put the time and effort into evaluating them all. There are also many
company specific free recipe "booklet" apps, Lawry's, Dijon, McCormick,
etc., etc. to search and thumb through, all skewed to selling more related
product. At least most are presented using the iPhone's dazzling GUI.

Best,

Andy

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:22:02 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article ]>,
> isw > wrote:
>
>
>> Plus, can you find "tomatoes" as an ingredient while ignoring "tomatoes"
>> mentioned in the title, the procedure, or the notes?
>
> Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no database.
> Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain as the search engine,
> can easily ignore any recipes that don't have "tomato" as an ingredient.
> Let's face it, just how many recipes would have "tomato" in the title,
> procedure or notes; but not as an ingredient?

i was thinking the same thing. the only hypothetical i could come up with
was a recipe called 'killer drink to render your red-hot tomato more
pliable.'

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:25:47 -0400, James Silverton wrote:

> Dan wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:22:02 -0700:
>
>
>> Another bad example. I can do this search easily, with no
>> database. Just search for "tomato". My eyes, with my brain
>> as the search engine, can easily ignore any recipes that don't
>> have "tomato" as an ingredient. Let's face it, just how many
>> recipes would have "tomato" in the title, procedure or notes;
>> but not as an ingredient?
>
> Google Desktop is essentially pre-sorted and is thus almost
> instantaneous. I can't see why I'd want to know all recipes that don't
> have "tomato" but I could get them with simply "- tomato". A more
> restrictive sort like the example I gave, tomato + jicama + celery,
> seems a more likely thing to do.

i, um, googled this, and it sounds like a very useful tool. i think it
will be the next doodad to add to my not-yet bloated machine.

your pal,
blake