My library currently contains 6450 papers, and it appears that 1794 of these contain notes. I hadn’t realised this before as I tend to use highlighting to annotate rather than write notes, but in probably 90% of those cases the Note is a doi, conference detail or Paperpile filename for some reason. For those with conference detail it looks as though conference proceedings are being imported as a ‘Book Chapter’ and the conference detail added to the notes, but I cannot see an obvious reason why any of the notes should contain anything unless I put it there myself. Any idea why this has happened? And is there an easy way to empty the field for these papers. This erroneous field filling makes it almost impossible for me to identify those papers that I have actually added notes to…
I fully agree with jmw. It is quite annoying to have the notes field filled automatically by the software. Can you please develop a routine to empty this field? I believe that is something easy to do, right?
Thanks @jmw and @Jose for reporting this. I brought it to the team for review, it seems they managed to identify it as a bug and are now working on tracking the source and prioritizing a solution. In short - this should be fixed over one of our next updates.
@jmw, I’m afraid I have no suggestions to distinguish between your notes and the buggy ones. Sorry I don’t have better news.
BTW, my suggestion of a ‘mass search and replace’ feature would solve these kinds of problems. Or, alternatively, create an API so that 3rd parties can create this.