[deleted]
Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
51–60 of 181 posts
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#52I 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.
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#53Check 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.
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#54Folders 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.
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#55With 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…
> 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 calle…
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.
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#56>Error establishing a database connection Whew I wasn't ready for that hot take.
[deleted]
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good folder hierarchy is like a library: you know where it is even before you look for it.
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.
Nah, that's when you just have an "Unsorted" folder. Sort that once per week. Problem solved
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#58After 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]
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 bette…
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.
Re: Yet another hot take on “folders versus tags”
#60Trees/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.