[HN Gopher] Yet another hot take on "folders versus tags" ___________________________________________________________________ Yet another hot take on "folders versus tags" Author : not-now Score : 89 points Date : 2022-01-24 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (eleanorkonik.com) (TXT) w3m dump (eleanorkonik.com) | endisneigh wrote: | What can you do with folders that you cannot with tags? | sseagull wrote: | It's not about ability, but mindset. | | Folders are tree structures where each file lives in only one | place (in practice, hard links are uncommon, and symlinks are | more common but obvious). | | That abstraction is useful when navigating, looking for related | files, etc. | | Tags are more general. Yes, they could implement the features | of folders, but the connotation of tags is that they are flat | and unstructured. | mro_name wrote: | exclusivity. | endisneigh wrote: | you can do that with tags tho. | brazzy wrote: | > Sometimes people will ask me what I do when I have something | that could go into multiple places and the answer has always been | pretty simple: if something could conceivably fit in two | different folders I need to consolidate my folders. | | How does that not lead to an end result where you have _one_ | folder "everything", and thus no organization at all? There's | always edge cases. | EleanorKonik wrote: | I've got over 2k files in my Obsidian vault and haven't had a | problem really. | | I think it depends on how you categorize things? I'm never | going to confuse my tax documents with my short fiction, or my | character profiles for a fantasy character for my daily notes | page. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | >Error establishing a database connection | | Whew I wasn't ready for that hot take. | riffic wrote: | running a wordpress is a noble endeavor but it isn't ideal for | unexpected traffic hugs from a site like this. | EleanorKonik wrote: | I am _literally_ mid-migration to Ghost because of how slow | Wordpress is :( :( :( | riffic wrote: | The Ghost team has been talking about moving more towards | the JAMstack model (static sites, basically). I don't run | it myself but it's something worth looking into depending | on your traffic expectations in the future: | | https://www.netlify.com/blog/2019/01/11/ghost-on-the- | jamstac... | bacro wrote: | I guess it was so hot, that the database melted. | EleanorKonik wrote: | I'm hosted on Digital Ocean, and the irony is, I'm literally | mid-migration to Ghost from Wordpress -- if this had happened | a week later this wouldn't have happened. | | I'm trying to figure out how to upgrade the droplet but being | honest, my husband is the one who set all this up for me, so | it's going to take me a minute to figure out how to add more | bandwidth or whatever. | riffic wrote: | if you're expecting more bursty traffic coming your way | from reddit or HN, it might be best to deploy a static site | out to something like Vercel, GitHub Pages, Cloudflare | Pages, Netlify, et cetera. it's not really as easy as | running from a WordPress instance but it'll better handle | these sort of events. | | DigitalOcean's App Platform supports static sites too. | mikestew wrote: | _I 'm trying to figure out how to upgrade the droplet but | being honest, my husband is the one who set all this up for | me_ | | Yeah, HN can be all "why didn't you just...?" when a site | gets hit with traffic, but you know what? I've been in this | industry for over 30 years, had a decent stint at Microsoft | and other companies you've heard of, working on stuff | you've probably used. And if my stupid blog somehow ended | up on the front page of $POPULAR_SITE I wouldn't have the | first clue how to increase bandwidth. Oh, 30 years of this | shite means I know where to immediately start looking, but | off the top of my head? _phhhhht_ And it sure as hell would | take me more than "a minute to figure out how to add more | bandwidth or whatever". :-) | | Point is, your page hit the HN lottery, no need for | apology. I can bookmark it for later. | EleanorKonik wrote: | If I can figure out how to GET to my wordpress page for | long enough, I'll set up a redirect and mirror it as an | article on https://obsidianroundup.org/ -- which is | literally what I was working on this week, haha, the nice | folks at Ghost's concierge already helped me do it for my | history nerd stuff newsletter. | | Someone reached out and said I can use Cloudflare to fix | this, so I'm gonna go try that, doot doot. | mattnewton wrote: | This - I've worked fullstack on apps that do unfathomable | numbers of connections per second. But for a personal | blog the best thing I could muster is probably go to the | cloudflare site with my wallet in hand and click around | nervously until I figure out how to buy caching from them | before it falls off the top page of hacker news. | weaksauce wrote: | It's the database that is being hit(multiple times | probably) every page request. typically you would add a | caching layer to wordpress so that each url would get | cached for N minutes so you don't need to do the expensive | rendering each time. | Jarwain wrote: | If you want something quick and easy, just sign up for a | free account at Cloudflare and hook up their CDN. It's a | useful thing to have even when you've switched to | WordPress, too. | EleanorKonik wrote: | Ah, bless, this is exactly what I am doing right now and | it is much less terrifying than I thought it would be. | | Ironically, this has been on my todo list to learn -- I | want to mirror my Obsidian notes and that requires | Cloudflare and before today I've been too nervous to muck | around with it. | Jarwain wrote: | Or, uh, switched to ghost. Although ghost could likely | handle it on its own | renewiltord wrote: | It's an old problem. You just need WP-Cache or WP- | SuperCache or successor plugins. i.e. not your fault, this | happens to everyone who runs WP. | [deleted] | [deleted] | EleanorKonik wrote: | Oh god I'm sorry I wasn't expecting this level of traffic, let | me see if I can fix it. | jetrink wrote: | Here's an archive link for now: | | https://web.archive.org/web/20220124201438/https://eleanorko. | .. | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Don't worry about it, it's the HN effect. I really recommend | using a PaaS like Netlify (I'm not sponsored or affiliated). | It will take a weight off your shoulders the next time you | get a surge. | EleanorKonik wrote: | I think I managed to get Cloudflare set up, let's hope that | works | [deleted] | irthomasthomas wrote: | I just accept that modern computing is complex, and requires a | multitude of methods to organise and navigate. | | For example, I use Digikam from KDE to manage my photos. It has a | LOT of ways to file and retrieve photos. First are collections, | and they contain folders that are a window to the filesystem. (I | like that, because it means only maintaining one filing system.) | Inside a folder view, you can also group photos by dragNdrop. You | also have star ratings, tags, flags, locations and faces. You can | search by dates, locations on a map, or show images that are | similar. The list goes on. It is very flexible, so you can choose | your workflow. | hyferg wrote: | Check out Bonsai Browser [0] if you want to see what a web | browser built on tagging rather than folders looks like | (disclaimer: co-founder). | | I think the main virtue of tagging systems is in the low friction | to add info and multiple inclusion. | | Tagging also has its downsides and I think we'll probably end up | on some hybrid system in the long run. | | [0] https://bonsaibrowser.com/ | wsinks wrote: | Seemed interesting, but why do you have to have an account to | log in? | | I was going to try it out, but.. I just hate not being able to | try something before giving away my email. | hyferg wrote: | Maybe we can add anon accounts at some point. The main reason | right now is to make the feedback process easier since it | starts an email chain that we can follow up on. All of the | best improvements recently have started with these email | chains and follow on conversations. | hooande wrote: | You'll get more and higher quality feedback from a larger | volume of users. And right now you're self selecting for | people who are willing to use their email to create an | account. | | The best way to improve a product is to have a lot of | people use it | dariusj18 wrote: | I miss the promise of WinFS | ryanjkirk wrote: | Folders work perfectly in a pure hierarchical taxonomy. Many | classifications defy this rigid of a structure, however. For | example: | | Widget 1: it is A and B but not C, so tag it with A and B. | | Widget 2: it is A and B and C, so tag it A, B, and C. | | Widget 3: it is B only, so tag it B. | | That is pretty simple, but you couldn't represent that in a | folder system without permutation folders, meaning you now have | folder sprawl, making things harder to find. | | This is how servers and ec2s are for almost everyone. Billing | codes, environments, teams, business units, etc. A folder | taxonomy to replace ec2 tags would be a nightmare. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | After the past 5 years or so of experiencing the supposed best | "folderless" computing has to offer on iOS and ideologically | similar platforms. | | I've gained huge respect for how beautiful the concept of the | folder is. | [deleted] | daenz wrote: | I wrote Supertag[0] specifically to get the same kind of | ergonomics with tags as you get with folders. Basically you can | dynamically render sub-folders based on the tags that apply to | your current selection. | | Example: /A/B contains the intersection of tags A and B. If | sub-folder C exists underneath /A/B, it's because one of the | files in the intersection also has tag C. | | 0. https://amoffat.github.io/supertag/ | ASalazarMX wrote: | Folders are simple, even if tags can imitate them, they can't | replace their structure. Tags are a good fit for items that | naturally fall into several categories, like music or books, | but not for general file systems. | tablespoon wrote: | > Folders are simple, even if tags can imitate them, they | can't replace their structure. Tags are a good fit for items | that naturally fall into several categories, like music or | books, but not for general file systems. | | This. They're different tools for different jobs. Being a | dogmatist and trying to win an us vs them competition on | which is the ONE TRUE SOLUTION is stupid. That's like trying | to argue which is a better tool, a screwdriver or a pair of | pliers, and saying it's stupid to keep a screwdriver in a | toolbox. Honestly, in a lot of cases both should be | implemented and available. | | Stupid reasons pliers are better than screwdrivers: | | * There are so many different kinds of screwdrivers; it's too | confusing to users. | | * Pliers can be used to drive screws, so there's no need for | a dedicated screw-driving tool. We've had a lot of success | gripping the screw head with pliers and turning. | | * Pliers are beautiful and modern, and lots of popular | influencers are using pliers now. Screwdrivers are old tech | and ugly. | jdechko wrote: | Your toolbox analogy is great for another reason. I can | "tag" my screwdrivers with multiple items: Philips, flat, | Torx, Square, short, long, ratcheting... Each screwdriver | can have multiple tags. But I store them all in the same | drawer in my toolbox. | munificent wrote: | _> if tags can imitate them, they can 't replace their | structure._ | | Technically, they can. A "folder" is just a tag whose name is | the entire directory path up to root. All files with that | same tag are in the same folder. | alpaca128 wrote: | Assuming the tags cannot be linked in hierarchies/graphs. | politician wrote: | And yet, folders are tags. | ASalazarMX wrote: | In the sense that a staircase can be used to seat guests. | Folders are not like tags, tags are like flat folders. | Folders are better at separating, tags are better at | mixing. | mro_name wrote: | just veeery shy ones. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | Agree. They both have a place. I use Zotero to keep track of | my references and also just interesting things I find. It | uses folders and tags. Fantastic! | throwoutway wrote: | Could you describe your Zotero folder & tag strategy? I | don't know where to start with this and it's a hot mess | 24thofjan wrote: | Here you can see uses of folders and tags. It's from an | academic context but you'll get the idea. | https://youtu.be/efLOqgS4jzA | joe8756438 wrote: | I think a casual relationship to tags and folders together is the | way. I built a system that allows both [0]. And using them | together has some advantages. It's important that nothing of type | A could ever be of type B. This is useful managing client work, | and other things like transactional data. Folders handle this | scenario. OTOH, a lot of research material for one bucket might | be related to another, for me that's usually programming related | articles etc. I want to review all that stuff together -- a tag | handles that. | | In other words, folders create boundaries between information, | and tags connect across those boundaries. | | [0]. https://www.tatatap.com | dejj wrote: | Shameless plug: | | I wrote a Nemo extension [1] that lets you add columns for #tags | @persons or $whatever you put in a filename. You can sort by | these columns. For complex things, there's always `find`. | | [1] https://github.com/dejj/nemo-addons/blob/main/nemo- | python/ex... | asciimov wrote: | I still want a filesystem that can do both. | | I want to have regular folders, and then folders that I can issue | a SQL style query to generate their contents. | | Take multimedia. With a traditional file system you can only have | one type of sort. Typically by type (audio, video, image) and | then alphabetically. It would often be nice to have a folder that | is formed by querying the metadata, say all the items released in | the 1950's, or all the items that are a low quality copy. | fishtacos wrote: | MS tried it [0] and failed. It was not easy. This was in the | days of Whistler, Blackcomb and Longhorn and always an | interesting read if you've the time. [1] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS [1] | https://hal2020.com/2013/03/10/winfs-integratedunified-stora... | snowwrestler wrote: | Apple did it and succeeded? In MacOS you can use tags and/or | folders to organize files, and there is an OS-wide search | index (Spotlight). | PaulHoule wrote: | With symlinks (or hard links for that matter) you can have | folders work like tags in a real filesystem. | | That said, binary classification (object A is a member of class | B, a function with a boolean truth value) is the basic concept in | classification. That is, any classification can be represented | correctly with binary classification. | | There really are a few things where you assign something a | category from a finite set (like a chess game was won by "White", | "Black" or was a draw) but frequently when people build | ontologies based the idea that "A is a member of one of this set | of categories" they are going to screw it up. | jancsika wrote: | > With symlinks (or hard links for that matter) you can have | folders work like tags in a real filesystem. | | The word _can_ is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. | | Tagging system (at least the ones I've seen): enter the tags as | autocompleted tokens in a single text entry. Possibly the | system can autosuggest a number of tokens, possibly not, | depending on your use case. | | Symlinks-as-Tagging-System: I want to save a file called | "foo.txt" and start editing it immediately. How do I enter the | tags? | hotdag wrote: | Presumably the same way you would enter tags in a regular | program that has tags, except the datastructure would be | stored as a disk file system. you dont necessarily have to | manually run ln -s every time, the same way you dont have to | run a sql insert to update a tumblr posts tags. | vannevar wrote: | Is there some reason that a filesystem couldn't be written to | permit multiple paths to the same file without the clunkiness | of sym links? | throwaway_Aef8 wrote: | I have the answer it's a graph based filesystem! Just kidding | I don't really have an "answer" just your question inspired | me to Google for a graph based file system. | | https://fsgeek.ca/2019/05/09/graph-file-systems/ | PaulHoule wrote: | That's a hard link. They have problems too. | bityard wrote: | Unix has supported multiple paths pointing to the same inode | for a very long time. `man ln`. | zinekeller wrote: | (Windows) NTFS has hard links which are multiple pointers to | the same file, but I imagine that the strict separation | between FSes that made it possible in NT is also the reason | why Unix, which has a single arbitrary hierarchy, doesn't | have hard links.* | | * Yes there _are_ hard links, but the single hierarchy means | that unless you memorised the specific FS of each folder, it | 's gonna be hard. | ryanjkirk wrote: | That would be a hard link, though they can't cross filesystem | boundaries. | jerf wrote: | The problem with multiple paths leading to the same file | isn't with the file system, but with the file system users. | When you're writing scripts or programs against file systems | it is really convenient to assume that each filename is one | and only one file, that the file has a unique name, and that | the file system is strictly a tree. | | File systems can technically break all of these; files can | contain multiple files within themselves with many file | systems, the ability to have multiple paths leading to the | same file means that if you just have the file in hand you | don't have a unique path, which also means that if you remove | that name it doesn't mean you've removed the file. But most | of the time, you can kinda get away with writing normal code | and it'll do the right thing. But that last one really burns. | It is really easy to write code assuming file systems are | just trees, and in particular can't have infinite loops, and | be wrong about that. | em-bee wrote: | i make extensive use of hardlinks in my files (especially | with photos), and i don't see the problem. if i remove a | file, i don't usually want it gone completely, but i want | removed from this particular location, if it is hardlinked | elsewhere, i usually still want to keep it there. | | if i want to really remove it, i can scrub the contents | without removing the hardlink, and if i want to delete | after scrubbing i check the hardlink count and search for | the remaining entries. | malkia wrote: | If only symlinks worked for every software / OS. On Windows at | least, there are so many different way to link things | (including "subst") that it's hard to get idea which one to | use. (I do love symlinks, but having spent most of my time on | Windows, there are some edge cases I've hit, for example some | third_party software not following the symlink and simply | failing to open the file..., and no that was not the old .lnk | style link) | sumtechguy wrote: | mklink if anyone is curious. It can act oddly in a few cases. | Especially if you cross volume/network boundries. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Spatial metaphors is arguably the easiest shortcut to a design | that makes sense to humans. Spatial reasoning is something even | animals are capable of. | | Categories are much more abstract, and while useful, less | intuitive. | | Which is why folders should remain, complement them with other | means of navigation for sure, but hiding them away will only make | things less intuitive. | | In the end, whatever capabilities your design has are only as | useful as their ability to be understood and used. | BlueTemplar wrote: | Indeed, consider how one navigates a "memory palace" going into | a specific room (=folder) ! | stickfigure wrote: | I've always wanted to see a "folder view" of a purely tags-based | system. At the root level, `ls` shows you a list of tags (and | possibly "all files"). cd into a tag, and `ls` shows you a list | of the remaining tags (and relevant files). Repeat as many times | as you like. | | Example session might look something like this: | / $ ls -d foo bar baz / $ cd foo /foo $ | ls -d bar baz /foo $ cd baz /foo/baz $ ls | -d bar | | Obviously, at the root level you're also including all files so a | naked `ls` would return a lot of output. But this seems like a | good way to bridge to the POSIX world; you could probably | implement it on any modern OS with a FUSE filesystem. | daenz wrote: | I'm really trying not to overly promote Supertag[0] in this | thread (disclaimer: I am the author) , but it does exactly what | you describe. | | 0. https://amoffat.github.io/supertag/ | alpaca128 wrote: | Does this also allow looking for e.g. files that are either | in tag A or B or both? Intuitively I'd guess this is a | limitation when you use a path to filter files, though I | might be wrong. | xtracto wrote: | In my opinion, any OpenSource application should not be | bashed for promoting in threads like these. What will you | win? probably more work as more people try your software and | raise issues (feature requests or bugs). The fact that it is | Libre means that any "self promotion" will not have any | monetary gain, so it is fine with me. | | Aaaaanyways... SuperTag looks AMAZING. I will give it a try | right now and see how it works for me. Thanks a lot for | implementing it :) | | EDIT: It doesn't want to install for me on OSX :( Oh well, it | sounded too good to be true haha. ~ brew | install amoffat/rnd/supertag Running `brew | update --preinstall`... ==> Tapping amoffat/rnd | Cloning into | '/usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/amoffat/homebrew-rnd'... | remote: Enumerating objects: 24, done. remote: | Counting objects: 100% (24/24), done. remote: | Compressing objects: 100% (17/17), done. remote: | Total 24 (delta 4), reused 24 (delta 4), pack-reused 0 | Receiving objects: 100% (24/24), done. Resolving | deltas: 100% (4/4), done. Error: Invalid formula: | /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/amoffat/homebrew- | rnd/supertag.rb supertag: Unsupported special | dependency :osxfuse Error: Cannot tap amoffat/rnd: | invalid syntax in tap! | Melatonic wrote: | Very interesting | gorjusborg wrote: | why choose? | | Current desktop operating systems have hierarchical filesystems | _and_ support flat lookup via indexing (e.g. MacOS 's spotlight). | ggm wrote: | 2021 | gorjusborg wrote: | https://archive.is/M9r4Q | pphysch wrote: | Trees/hierarchies ("folders") are for organization, unconstrained | graphs/networks ("tags") are for ontologies. Crossing these | streams leads to a lot of trouble. | | When flexible graphs/networks are abused for organizational | purposes, you get circular dependencies, spaghetti code, and | general dysfunction. Organizations (code or people) _need_ to be | easy to navigate. | | When rigid hierarchies are abused for classification purposes, | you run into "class House, class Boat, class HouseBoat extends | ???" knots. Ontologies _need_ to be flexible. | | Modern filesystems necessarily use both: we have folders, and we | have file types/tags. | culi wrote: | You could hypothetically collapse the two though. You can have | tags and could use those to automatically generate efficient | organization structures. | | For example, say you have the following datums with the | following tags apple: plant, Rosaceae, | tree, fruit peach: plant, Rosaceae, tree, fruit | rose: plant, Rosaceae, shrub, flower dandelion: | plant, Asteraceae, herb, flower carrot: plant, | Apiaceae, herb, root pig: animal, Suidae | | You can then try to generate a folder structures that optimizes | certain parameters like keeping the average number of children | to not too far away from ~6 and/or minimizing the depth of the | repo structure or whatever. Depending on how you wanna optimize | it, you could end up with a number of structures such as: | root - plant - tree - apple - | peach - herb - dandelion - carrot | - rose - animals - pig | | or root - Rosaceae - apple | - peach - rose - animal - pig - | other - dandelion - carrot | | You can use your imagination to think of better structures or | optimization problems, but you get the basic point. We can have | tags be our primary classification method and have the | organizational structure be an outcome of that. | pphysch wrote: | I like this approach: building a simple folder interface on | top of a more flexible tag system, which can always be | accessed when necessary. I think many systems would benefit | from it. | | There are tradeoffs, though: a fair bit of overhead for each | heavily nested item. And you would want some support for | ensuring the integrity of the hierarchies (i.e. someone | accidentally removes "tree" from the tag set of "apple"). | throwaway_Aef8 wrote: | maybe on top of your idea ensure there's a graph feature | like at the top right of | https://help.obsidian.md/Obsidian/Index | githubalphapapa wrote: | Here's a library for writing such classification systems in | Emacs Lisp: https://github.com/alphapapa/taxy.el | | Especially, see this example: | https://github.com/alphapapa/taxy.el#sporty-understanding- | co... | willbudd wrote: | An interesting hybrid approach I've experimented with in the | past is to use tags while ensuring that the tags themselves are | purely hierarchical. (Is there a name for this scheme?) | [deleted] | alpaca128 wrote: | Maybe something like "hierarchical taxonomy", or just simply | class hierarchy? Though I'm not aware of such a term that's | explicitly for tags if that's the point. | jeddy3 wrote: | I'm having troubles visualising what you mean, without it | becoming "just folders". | | Can you elaborate? | willbudd wrote: | As a node in a tree hierarchy any folder can only have one | parent folder. Tags of course allow nodes to have any | number of parents (aka "associations"). | | The relationship between arbitrary nodes in a tree can be | determined by tracing their common ancestry, but tags don't | provide equivalent functionality, unless you strictly | define how tags themselves relate to other tags. An obvious | way to do so is to prescribe that every tag shall have | exactly one parent (except for the root abstract "thing" | tag). | | In other words tags become folders, but any non-folder | content of those folders can simultaneously live inside any | number of folders. Similar to symlinks, but arguably less | hacky, because there is no differentiation between "actual" | location and "linked" location. | slaymaker1907 wrote: | I'm not sure of a name, but Tiddlywiki does this. You create | hierarchies by having tags by creating an item with the tag | as its name which causes all items with said tag to be a | child of that item. This has a nice side effect of allowing | items to exist in multiple locations (so no unique parent is | enforced) while still requiring the graph to be acyclic. | | It ends up working kind of like hard links for folders/files, | but it is a lot easier to setup since child items are the | ones which declare where they are located, not the | parents/directories. I think another reason why hard links | are more difficult to use than this particular system is that | with Tiddlywiki, it is easy to see all the locations an item | falls under at once as well as seeing all the items at a | particular location. I feel like adding this reverse location | information would be quite helpful and would be less of a | change than implementing tags for existing filesystems. | irrational wrote: | The challenge is knowing which one you are dealing with at any | particular time. | robbrown451 wrote: | https://archive.fo/M9r4Q | fallingmeat wrote: | They both support discoverability in different ways | leecarraher wrote: | what about 3d building like structures that you fly over or into. | mainly for amusement parks, zoos, a combination of both, and oil | speculation supercomputers | smrtinsert wrote: | Tags I've always thought of conceptual while Folders are at the | very least absolute. | | Let's say I'm recording events for my future travels. | trips/paris.md and trips/cancun.md are in my folder structure | with them tagged as business and vacation respectively. Later, I | can go back and add a "mistakes" tag to cancun.md, but really if | ever need to look up all my trips, I know it will be in trips and | it's incontrovertible fact that cancun was a trip. | | There's room for both, but tagging historically came out of a | need where search functions were poor. These days tagging is | unnecessary work imo. | fouc wrote: | It should be possible to mimic tags with folders & clever | scripting that moves files around according to their "tags". | | Imagine a command like: tagmv file1 file2 | directory1 directory2 -t tag1 tag2 tag3 | | where it moves the files/directories to something like | ~/t/tag1#/tag2#/tag3#/ | | Or instead of using "#" could use some other special/rare | character/unicode to indicate that it is a "tag-directory". | | The hierarchy of the tag-directories could ordered from the most | common to least common tags. The most common tag, would have the | tag-directory under the top level directory (something like ~/t/ | to prevent confusion with the rest of the filesystem perhaps?). | | The files & tag-directories could get re-organized every time the | usage of tags changes, in order to keep the hierarchy from most | common tags to least common. | | A set of tools like tagmv, tagcd, tagls, etc could work with this | tag-based structure. | | Thoughts? | mro_name wrote: | There's a talk about such https://karl-voit.at/managing- | digital-photographs/, there's a video. | | Karl seems to have a fancy TUI, I made me a cmdline helper | https://codeberg.org/mro/Tagger. | fouc wrote: | I've seen that type of idea before, encoding tags within the | file name. But as someone that lives in the terminal, I'm not | a huge fan of cluttering up and making the file names so | long. | amelius wrote: | Instead of tagging (which takes effort) you could also use a good | search algorithm. | pphysch wrote: | If (fuzzy) search is your primary use case, sure. But | classification is also important for other use cases, like | security ACLs, usage analytics, etc. | klyrs wrote: | SELECT * FROM desktop_icons WHERE ... | | I used to be one of those people who had to sort my desktop | icons to find stuff, because there were so many icons they'd | overlap. Today, ~/Desktop is completely empty. I've gotta say, | folders are far superior to a rubbish bin, even when it isn't | hard to search files by name & contents. | YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: | If you don't know what's the name of what to search for can you | search for it? I get that a lot of developers like the idea of | falling back to search because most files you use can be | searched for contents but for everyone that has to work with | binary files it's not suitable. | | Johnny Decimal is also just another abstraction layer and in | this a terrible one. | Tagbert wrote: | i would still want it to support tagging so that I could ensure | that those searches picked up specifically what I wanted and | not more random results. I've had to try to find things on | Confluence and Sharepoint and it takes a lot of time to try to | get what you want out of the search results. | ASalazarMX wrote: | A good folder hierarchy is like a library: you know where it is | even before you look for it. | arsome wrote: | Except when you forgot to put it in the right place because | you just had to extract it and do that one quick thing... | | I'd rather not rely on my own willingness to organize files | so I'll take a search tool any day. | quacked wrote: | Nah, that's when you just have an "Unsorted" folder. Sort | that once per week. Problem solved | Jtsummers wrote: | This is how I treat my project (personal and work) task | management. Throw things into the inbox as they come up | unless I have the time to organize right then, later on | sort into various contexts and tag them (to the extent I | care to tag) when I have a chance. Once I've tagged it, | it's clear of the inbox. Also how I used to use Gmail | (back when I used the web interface, which I gave up on | when it started crawling on my new and bleeding edge, at | the time, desktop). | ASalazarMX wrote: | I have two such folders: "Downloads" and "Temp". Everything | not classified stays there until it gets moved to a | permanent folder, or erased. | | I admit I sometimes search for files, but it's a filename | search, not a content search. I don't want a background | service indexing the files and contents of all my disks | when I can use a regular search instead. | wrycoder wrote: | One needs both. With folders and trees of bookmarks, you | can discover stuff you'd forgotten and wouldn't search for | (because you'd forgotten you knew it once :). | | This becomes more important as you get older and begin to | experience the pleasures of reading things again for the | "first" time. | [deleted] | btrettel wrote: | Probably depends on your use case, but my experience is that | getting good results with text search often takes a lot more | effort than tagging/classifying the documents when you get them | would. It takes effort to craft a good query. Terminology used | varies. "Oh, Sally uses a different term than I do, what was | that?" If you tag or put the files into folders then you can | standardize. | | I worked as a patent examiner in the past and using only text | search for that would be considered negligent there as it would | miss a lot of documents. I ultimately used a combination of | text, classification, citation, and AI similarity search | techniques. Each has strengths and weaknesses so using all of | them makes sense. | bityard wrote: | I keep my personal notes in an app that I wrote which is backed | by SQLite. It resembles a wiki. | | First, I tried tags. This seemed like a good idea and was a lot | of fun at first, but eventually I got _really_ tired of having to | curate tags for all of my notes and boy there were a lot of them! | It's not something you can just do once either, because every | time you update a note you have to remember to change the list of | tags as well. I wound up with many articles whose tags no longer | (or never did) match the content. | | To get myself out of the tag-curating business, I then tried the | "folder" idea by separating areas of concerns into namespaces. | So, all of the Python-related notes go under the "Python" | namespace. All of the database notes into "Databases," and so on. | All the did was shift the problem space. Which namespace does the | note on SQLAlchemy go in? If an article does not fit into an | existing namespace, should I create one for it now, or put it in | the root and hope I remember to move it if a second related note | comes along? To put it succinctly, my notes do not fit into a | DAG. | | My third iteration dropped both tags and namespaces and | implemented the FTS5 search built into SQLite. Two years later, I | have no regrets. The only "curation" I have to worry about is | giving each note an accurate title and breaking up large notes | into smaller ones when it makes sense. Now when I need something | I just search for it and it shows up in the results. | | Google for all of their other faults got one thing extremely | right when it came to web content and email: curation is a fine | hobby but for Really Getting Shit Done, you index the content | well and then just search for it when you need it. | mro_name wrote: | exactly the same sold me on spotlight search on macos. Have to | sign "for all of their other faults got one thing extremely | right" as well, sigh. | BoppreH wrote: | > To put it succinctly, my notes do not fit into a DAG. | | I think you mean "tree" or "hierarchy"? A DAG would be a | superset of tagging, and could place SQLAlchemy under both | Python and Databases, as long as you consider the edges | oriented (i.e. there's a parent-child relationship). | | Doesn't solve the tag maintenance issue, though. | tylerhou wrote: | Technically, if their notes can't be represented by a DAG, | they also can't be represented by a tree either. | onion2k wrote: | Search works brilliantly for your own notes because you know | what you're looking for. You wrote the notes. It fails for | problems that you can't describe well though, especially if you | don't know the technical jargon to search for. Directories and | tags can work for that problem because you can easily see | relationships like a hierarchy of folders, or what other tags a | tagged item has. Tags and folders also act as a prompt to | classify and organise things, which occasionaly leads to | discovering how things are connected. | | "How to find stuff" is a space with many solutions to similar | looking but subtly different problems. | telchar wrote: | That's a nice summary of the problem and a solution I think I | can agree with. One quibble is I think your notes could maybe | fit into a DAG, but (as I think you meant) not a tree. In | practice I don't think there's an easy way to do that - it | would mean lots of sym or maybe hard linking and I don't know | enough about filesystems to know if that's feasible. | | But the one area that curation carries a big advantage over | search is in browsing. You can do maybe some things with topic | modeling and recommendations to allow a kind of browsing, but | with searching it's really hard to know whether you have | thoroughly covered a part of the space via searching, while | with hierarchical curation that is easy. Filling in that last | part with a good solution would make searching a no brainer | over curation I think, but IMO I don't think most search | solutions try to handle that right now. | viraptor wrote: | > I wound up with many articles whose tags no longer (or never | did) match the content. | | I'm curious about your tagging strategy. Could you show some | example of this issue? | | I feel like my tags are very different since they're barely | curated, but I can't imagine ending up with a "wrong" tag. I | may miss some and have to add them later, but i can't remember | ever removing or changing a tag. That's both in pinboard and in | my scanned documents. | akvadrako wrote: | I feel like you must be implicitly tagging your notes. | | Let's say you have notes about SQLite. If you don't put | "SQLite" in the note, how will you find them? | iqanq wrote: | select * from notes where upper(text) like '%SQLITE%' :P | em-bee wrote: | for me, folders are just a limited form of tagging. since i | switched from mutt with its folders to sup which uses tags for | email, i don't want to look back. first of all, my extensive | list of mutt folders was trivially translated to equivalent | tags, so i could continue as i was used to. but then, tagging | allowed me to create additional tags as i needed them. i didn't | tag everything, and sup also indexes all mails and also has | search, so in fact i get the advantage of both tags and search | (and i can save searches and treat them like virtual | tags/folders as well). | | well, effectively, tags too, are just a specialized form of | searching. | | the one thing i don't see is the problem with tags getting out | of sync. | | yes, it happens. tags do become obsolete, but that is rarely a | problem. it just means that i find get more results than i | should otherwise. occasionally when i see way to many obsolete | tags i go and clean up that particular category of tags. if it | is just a few then i ignore them. | | and if i look at a tag and i don't find what i need, then i | search for it, and add the tag when i find it so that next time | i'll find it faster, because with more than 2 million emails in | my archive search alone is not good enough. | Quekid5 wrote: | > for me, folders are just a limited form of tagging. | | I understand that this is a very subjective thing... but | folders offer an exclusion which isn't immediately available | via tagging. Tagging is _implicitly_ an _OR_ operation. | | Now, your search engine might offer ways to add "not X", but | it's a tradeoff. It you have highly-compartmentalized bits of | info you end up with the problem of "how much do have to | explicitly exclude from my search?". | | It's complicated. | | Personally, I think we're missing a level of organization | somehow. | jgtrosh wrote: | The final step GP is describing would correspond to | notmuch[1] for mail. Have you looked into that? | | [1]: https://www.notmuchmail.org | tkot wrote: | I have settled on putting tags (bunch of words I associate with | given subject separated by underscores) in names of | files/directories and using FSearch | (https://github.com/cboxdoerfer/fsearch) to search for the tags | in names/paths. | | It's simple, it's portable, it's good enough. You could in theory | improve it by having multiple views of the same data (let's say | you want to save some notes about "Naturalis Historia" - should | you put it under "ancient Rome" directory or under"biology"?) for | example by using hardlinks but I don't know if there is a way to | create a backup on another filesystem that will keep hardlinks as | hardlinks (DAR seems promising | http://dar.linux.free.fr/doc/Features.html but I have yet to try | it). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-24 23:03 UTC)