It is now a year later. It would be good to know how your impressions of Connotea have developed. I tested it the last couple days with a few dozen citations. It is an attractive & pleasant system, downright fun really. I became concerned, though: there is no way to edit the author-field, and the program just drops all the secondary authors. It also abbreviates given-names to an initial, and drops the middle-initial for 2-initial names.

As just a link to a source on the Net, as a beefed-up on-line Bookmarks or Favorites, loss of name-info is no biggie, but as a way of gathering a personal bibliography, it seems like a degradation of key info.

It appears that tags are all shared by everyone, and if one gets goofed up, others cannot edit it. By the time I had a few dozen tags, a number of them were automatically changed to plainly malformed spellings & capitalizations. I entered "Younger Dryas", and it immediately changed to "YOUNGER DRYAS". Someone had entered Younger Dryas without quotes, so in the related-tags column there was Younger and below it was Dryas. So when we export, we will drag a bunch of messed-up tags into our next environment.

The only fields we can edit are Title, Description, and Comments. People are stuffing Abstracts into the Description field. Or maybe filling it out with their own comments. As a database record, the end result is not pretty.

I enjoyed using it and wish it performed better, but I could just see ending up with hundreds ragged & irregular citations, over-pruned author-info (and no institution-affiliation) ... and continued my search.

Please send me an e-mail if there is a more current test & evaluation of Connotea - or a recommended alternative!