In tagging systems I actually use, you add tags by moving the file to a folder! You can set it up now with automator folder actions to add spotlight comments. It becomes it's own self documenting list of tags.
I wonder if in mavericks you can drag files to tags in the sidebar? That is a more natural action to me, that is to put something somewhere, rather than attach a label. I mean, browsing my "untagged" folder and dropping files on smart folders to get them out of my sight feels more intuitive and rewarding to clear out.
We've had labels in the finder for a little while and maverick's tagging looks to be improving on labels. I'd like more color and image options to use, just like custom folder and app icons. If you have a lot of tags, picking out the right one can be visually difficult. I feel it's easier to think of and remember tags visually as well as just being more fun.
Lion labels are super handy for sorting through a huge folder of semi random files by quickly chunking files into large groups, moving them to their proper place and removing the labels. I hope we don't lose the semi-disposable aspect of labels in the migration to tabs.
Lastly, we need proper keyboard shortcuts for tagging! For instance, some buttons + 0-9 for our 10 most common tags or something. Maybe tagging options from within quick look?
You can. If you have the tags all in the sidebar, you can drag the files onto it to tag them.
I don't get why you can't assign a tag a custom color though. You can currently only choose from the normal 7 colors. Makes no sense. Plus it only shows three colors at once and are harder to make out in the Finder than single labels were.
I think tags will be pretty much useless to people who are already organized. For work projects, you should already have a file naming convention in place. For example, at the place I work our files are always named as ClientName_ProjectName_2013-08-05.psd (or whatever). That file is placed in a folder hierarchy beginning with the ClientName. People have to be able to tell by looking at a file name quickly in the Finder what that file is. You cannot display all metadata in the Finder, so naming conventions like this are essential to an efficient workflow.
If the file gets accidentally moved from a folder, someone still needs to know what it is. Tagging will not solve this problem for someone that has never worked at a company and doesn't know how a file was tagged to begin with.
Some sort of folder hierarchy MUST remain.
You criticise tags by basically saying it is hard to name them effectively, then say you have to take great care to name files effectively! If you put as much thought in your naming convention to your tagging convention then they will be equivalent except for all the additional benefits a non-hierarchical dynamic display of files via tags brings. With good tag visualisation and a way to share and sync tags across accounts, things will get even better!
I'm not sure if I can get used to tagging every single file I create. I do like to think of my files as taking 'physical space' and having a specific location/folder.
If they keep both the folders and the tags, fine.
If they only rely on tags, a lot of people will drop a platform that forces them to do things the hard way (people deal much better with visual clues than written ones).
Tags *are* visual clues (you can easily visualise tag lists / clouds / networks etc) -- do you mean structural clues?
I don't know how the tags will work.
To give you an example, right now I use color labels to see which file is an original, which one is being worked on, and which one is completed. This is a very useful visual clue that tells me in less time that it takes the eye to blink what file I'm dealing with in any given folder. Distinguishing these types of files is a major part of my work flow.
How would the tags improve on that?
Also where would the tags appear? It's already a mess in a browser, I don't want to duplicate that to my workspace.
I admire teenagers who have the answer to our problems. I have been storing mainly text files on my computer for thirty years, and now have over a million files stored there. Please tell me where I can find the time to tag each one appropriately. I figure I have about ten years left until senility makes me non-functional. Let's see... that's one hundred thousand files a year, or two thousand files every week, say 300 files a day except Sunday. Every day. The job just gets finished and I drop off the twig. Thanks.
Belt and suspenders can work well together. I've been tagging files about our up-coming group meeting with the tag "summit". They are all over the place. I also created a Smart Folder that selects files and folders with the "summit" tag. All pulled together without moving a file. Belt and suspenders.
I'm so exceited to see accessible tagging metadata become part of our file organization!
If you think about it, folders are just as abstract a notion as category tags are, in that we label things based on our meaning we have for those items.
The problem with folders is that yes we can put stuff in the folders, but once you take them out, the files contain no information about where they belong, unless of course you name the actual file with similar descriptive naming as your folder. (ie. /financial/budgets/2013/2013-budget-v1.xls) Sometimes redundancy in nested file/folder naming can be undesirable and confusing too, and sometimes difficult to get at if nested too deeply.
With tagging, however, you can have multiple descriptors for the same file, making it show up in various search criteria. So if for example, a file is tagged as 2013 as well as financial, and budget, it will show up in any of these categories.
Which can get messier quicker? I guess you can always ask the question: if I neglect organizing things, which method would be the easiest to sift through? I think this is debatable. I think we've all experienced having a slew of data (ie. pictures with nothing more than time-stamps on their filenames) that need to be organized. Likewise, if files are floating around your file storage without tagging names, the only way of finding them might be by means of date or looking in an "untagged" dumping ground.
I don't think there's any magic solution for this process. I think complexity creeps in if you let it, regardless of what it is, and you justy have to stay on top of it. similar to hoarding, the more stuff you have, the harder it is to keep track of it and keep it organized and clean.
With that said, it remains an exciting notion that with tagging, regardless of the application we use, we have the power to cross-reference data in more meaningful ways. Its exciting to think that we will soon able to tag photos as you take them, and label them as "family vacation" or receipts. When we wish to retrieve them, its a matter of asking our computer to "show me the pictures from our last vacation. Or if our loved ones wish to find any documents about your will and testament, they wont have to know where you put it, it just appears upon command.
One more thought - with regard to privacy, it would be extremely useful to be able to lock tagging categories for sensitive data. This way, the moment a tag is locked with a passcode, it is encrypted and secure from prying eyes. Without having to find individual files to painstakingly encrypt, it would be great to be able to just say "lock all tags about money and financing".
The more I think about tagging, and voice-command accessibility, the more I realize the potential of this method of data organization.
I'm really excited to see tags coming to the OS. I've also been using tags for years through Tags and DefaultFolderX, but Openmeta doesn't seem to have much development ongoing and Tags (the app) support is sketchy at best. I'm convinced that having Apple do this means that my email tags shouldn't be lost on a TM recovery (I'm looking at you Tags).
For those worrying about remembering your tags, having a good naming system helps and hopefully there will be a master list available (Tags has one) to help set up saved searches.
Regarding a master list of tags: people who are serious about this issue (for example, sellers of stock photo libraries) tend to work from a "controlled vocabulary" (list of predefined keywords) to eliminate the confusion of synonyms. So you don't have to wonder "Did I tag that photo with 'seashore' or 'beach'?"
I love autocomplete on OS X tagging apps (and Pinboard tagging, etc.) because it keeps me from messing up case, hyphenation, pluralization, etc. I created the same thing for this blog... it's a Jekyll Autotagger that pulls a JSON file of all the tags on the blog and then does string comparisons to figure out the best ones, never creating multiple versions of the same tag. I whitelist new tags as needed, but use a very strict folksonomy.
Tagging does take some discipline. I think people will get better at it after they mess it up for a few years. I did...
It all depends on how you think. I don't remember the names of things well, so following trails through folders is the way I work. That also means I use launchpad a lot, and have all my apps sorted into folders there by function. If I want something to edit a vector diagram, I head for "Image - Vector" and then I can find the app I want even if I don't remember its name. Other people find launchpad useless, as they just do a quick Spotlight search for the name of the app they want.
Some people will find tagging a boon, others will not use it. Not sure about me - I'll give it a go.
What if you had a rich visual view of your tags and their relationships?
Also see Dave Metzner's post below for how your problem of forgetting an app name but remembering its function can easily be categorised in the way you do in Launchpad (in your case you'd need a tagging app with tag visualisation). And of course multiple tags means programs that serve multiple functions don't get dumped into a catchall rigid folder.
Belts and suspenders, meaning tagging and folders. I've used Spotlight enough to know that, even when applied tagging isn't that handy. With folders, I simply need to drill down through categories, looking in each folder for the right next folder. With tabs, if you don't know that magic word from years ago you're out of luck.
Folders have another advantage. Other than dumping on the desktop, you HAVE to choose what folder to put a file in. You don't have to remember to add a tag and, if you're like me, you often forget. With tagging only, forgetting means loosing.
I'm already ticked off that Apple wants almost every app to go in a massively cluttered Applications folder rather than subfolders beneath. There are apps I use so rarely I can't remember there name. The result is wasted time looking through a long list and trying app after app. Apple should create a dozen or so subcategories for apps, insist that developers specify which there app is, and auto-place them in those subfolders.
Like I said, belts and suspenders. Tagging isn't a valid reason to get rid of folders.
Hm, I really don't understand your critique. Tags are listable and searchable. Looking at a list of tags visualised in your favourite tagging app is like looking at a folder name list. The context is in the name, and of course you can use multiple tags, which provides robust alternatives to the fragile and inflexible "nested folder hierarchy". As Brett says, shallow folder hierarchies and then multiple tags gets you in the sweet spot of past and present (tagging still has some way to go to optimise the workflow, for example tag relationships could be powerful if well utilised).
Just because we have all got so used to making the baroque rigid hierarchies (a document must be in C OR D cascaded via A OR B), it is intuitive only because we have had to do it this way for so long. Tags are superior in every way except familiarity.
It depends on how tags are shown. Basically, a file system can be seen as a hierarchical tag structure, where only one tag at a level is allowed.
It should be still possible to browse through tags - you start at the outermost folder/with all tags, go into a folder/select a bunch of tags, ... etc. - belts and suspenders inter-exchangeable.
I roughly remember, that you will be able in mavericks to browse through text and hope that they will be hierarchical.
I haven't yet formed an opinion on tagging, but I agree that folders have their place. Even in Windows, it's really annoying that (in the newer versions) there are "Libraries" by default that include multiple folders in which it's difficult to differentiate/navigate folders/files.
Apps can be executed from anywhere in the system...don't like /Applications? put them in /CrappyApps or ~/something/something/crappyapp.app
As much as I appreciate the tagging conceptually, I must note up front I have not used it.
I think folders are essential for the dozens & dozens of projects I have, but can see bringing down the number of sub-folders if (and that is a big IF) the usage of tags can be implemented easily on the old, existing 150,000 files I have.
I'm now imagining manually tagging existing files...painful. So, I think a way to put tags on folders full of files will be needed to be easy, intuitive and quick. Something tells me the 3rd item won't quite work out that way.
There's going to be a mental adjustment period to make. I will have to think about how I might use the tagging and what I might put in the "tags."
I don't think anyone is saying that Tags will replace folders here. iTunes and MP3's have been doing this for years as an example. Even though your songs are all stored in folders and subfolders in the iTunes Music folder, tagging allows you to take songs from all over and collect them into a single playlist.
With apps and documents, the same can be done. You could have documents spread throughout your hard drive. Yet after tagging, you could create a smart folder in Finder that displays all documents, emails, etc in a single location related to a vacation or business trip for example.
For myself, identifying what an app does in tags has been a godsend. I never remember the name of apps I use even as often as once a week. After tagging all my Apps (thanks to OpenMeta) I'm able to find apps I would otherwise have to walk though in Finder one at a time to try to remember which one I was looking for.
Like I said, I use a shallow folder hierarchy. The fact is that we've always been able to filter by file type, date, content, etc. This just adds a layer of convenience and hard linking between files. I also mentioned that I've been doing this for years, so it's easy for me to see taking it further. It will be a slower transition for many, but I also foresee version of apps coming out in the not-to-distant future that require you to import old files into a more tag-based system.
Doo, as an example, categorizes files and adds tags for their folder location, any contacts it can associate with them, their content type and more. It adds these as OpenMeta tags and you can use Doo or Spotlight to then quickly gather everything no matter where it is.
Tagging starts working before you move a single file. You don't have to have one big pile of files to make tagging useful. If you want two files that are 12-folders in on different trees to show up in the same window, tag 'em.
I look forward to trying tags with OS X Mavericks, but I don't think it will be a silver bullet : tags are a great way to organize one's files (or any piece of information), but they don't work that well for shared files : the tags structure which might be natural for me will not necessary be OK for others users. Traditional hierarchical file systems are better for shared files.
AMEN! I've been using OpenMETA for years too. It's been a godsend since developers tend to name their apps some obscure thing that has nothing at all to do with what the app actually does. I use Tags mostly to help describe what each of my applications do. That way, when I am looking for an app that edits sound files I just put "tags:audio edit" in Spotlight and within seconds I see all the apps that modify sound files.
I've been scratching my head as to why all these Mac pundits are pondering the benefits of Tags as if they have never existed in OS X. Some even claim to be experts with OS X, and yet don't seem to know that OpenMETA even exists.
At least Apple is finally seeing the benefits and adding tags into Mavericks. I hope that they follow the open standard, but my guess is that they will just create their own and OpenMETA will become obsolete due to the new Apple standard.
Tagging apps like that is a really good idea. I often forget about apps I use infrequently and then can't remember the name of them, which is especially frustrating with something like LaunchBar. Do you know about the category prefix in Spotlight (category:music)? That helps, but I should start tagging my apps, too :).
What Apple did is create a new xattr for tags. OpenMeta uses the kOMUserTags xattr, so creating a converter that takes everything in that xattr and applies it to Apple's should be easy. OpenMeta could simply write to both xattr's in the future and create parity while extending the usefulness of the apps built around it.
I had this tab open now for too long. Brett, it is indeed very easy to create a converter script. If you haven't written one by yourself yet, here you go: https://gist.github.com/Zet...
Haven't had people report issues with it.
OpenMeta migrated from kOMUserTags to kMDItemOMUserTags few years ago, but the OpenMeta-supporting applications didn't follow the move all at the same time.
Apple could do a good job tying all together, but I dislike their behaviour of imposing guidelines without caring about the users, independent developer, geeks enthusiast (we all here).
I would like to see Mavericks tagging system and OpenMeta coexisting, but it is not likely to happen, in my opinion.
IF a certain equilibrium will be achieved, it will motivate OpenMeta-based developers, I'm hoping for this to happen!
New applications based, for example, on tags relationship analysis could really make the difference here.
Category is nice, but it only works for apps purchased with the Mac App Store. Nice, but I have a lot of legacy apps and apps that just are not sold there. I was almost blown away by this category thing until I realized that it's the App Store Category. Not quite as useful.
Still, it's good to see that a conversion tool could be written easily to move the OpenMeta tags to Mavericks. If I ever make it to that OS, I'll rest easy knowing that all my efforts at tagging my apps were not in vain.
Remarkbox