Using tags for file organisation

[Dave2002]

Does anyone here use tags as a means for organising data? Both Windows and Apple OS X have forms of tagging, and there is this open source tagging system - https://www.tagspaces.org/

OS X has had file tagging (or at least a hopefully workable interface for tags) since Mavericks - see https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202754
Windows has had file tags since at least Windows 7 - http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...-in-windows-7/

As one's file system expands, some operations become more complex, and projects also tend to become more complex, so tags may help to avoid or reduce some problems.

I know that quite a number of people use tags for music and photo files - but often within applications, such as music players and photo album software, but do many people use them at the OS level?

[Dave2002]

Further investigation shows that to some extent tags do work quite well in Mac OS X, but one area of concern is if files are sent to other people. It doesn't look as though the tags are sent across to the recipients - so that they have to redo their own tags. Maybe this can be made to work, but if not it means that the tags would be a productivity enhancer for a single person, but not for a group working cooperatively. OTOH I may have just not figured this out yet.

It also looks as though tags don't work so well if files are sent to systems running OS X versions before Mavericks, and there may even be issues unless the files are sent to exactly the same level of post Mountain Lion OS X.

[Dave2002]

I also found this link, from a techie site which gives more information - http://www.howtogeek.com/212444/how-...-work-for-you/

Some of the "tricks" are really neat.

[Anastasius]

I could never see the point of tags. In the example given, they tag screenshots. Why not simply have a folder called screenshots and put them in there ?

Tags imply the type of mind that is orderly, files stuff away properly, is very tidy and has a clear desktop. In other words, not someone like me!

[Dave2002]

I think they can be helpful, but there are problems with the implementations. They could enable files to be reused without duplication.
It does seem to me that the OS X implementations does not keep tags with the files which are tagged, so sending them to someone else loses the associated tagging.

By using tags, a file, or sets of files, can be associated with one of a number of tags, or any member of the power set generated by the set of tags available. Sometimes that could be useful.

[Anastasius]

I think they can be helpful, but there are problems with the implementations. They could enable files to be reused without duplication.
It does seem to me that the OS X implementations does not keep tags with the files which are tagged, so sending them to someone else loses the associated tagging.

By using tags, a file, or sets of files, can be associated with one of a number of tags, or any member of the power set generated by the set of tags available. Sometimes that could be useful.

You are confusing protocols. Why would you think that it is up to OSX to send the 'right' tags? A file is a file is a file and is defined by the wee letters after the dot. As in .jpeg or .mp3. Defined by countless standards committees.

Adding tags is the next layer up. Out of OS X remit.

'They'? Who are 'they'. Now is the time for someone to step forward and propose yet another file transfer mechanism....taaa daa....Take a bow, Dave

[Dave2002]

You are confusing protocols. Why would you think that it is up to OSX to send the 'right' tags? A file is a file is a file and is defined by the wee letters after the dot. As in .jpeg or .mp3. Defined by countless standards committees.

Adding tags is the next layer up. Out of OS X remit.

'They'? Who are 'they'. Now is the time for someone to step forward and propose yet another file transfer mechanism....taaa daa....Take a bow, Dave

Re layers - you may be right. It depends how implementations get done, though we have moved on from plain text files which is what files mostly were some while back. I'm afraid I recall thinking of something very similar perhaps 40 years ago - though then I was more concerned with packing meta information about each file within each file. In those days file storage was a problem, so I have a vague recollection of thinking how much information could be packed into 100 bytes associated with each file, and perhaps using some coding scheme to get close packing. That would be considered ludicrously small now, and fancy coding schemes have largely gone, though XML is very verbose, and for some applications can generate huge files, where compact codings have the same information, and are much more manageable.

Nowadays you might spot that issues such as who owns each file might be relevant, so the point about layers starts to come out. I may choose to use a file in a different way from you - so why should you be forced to use my tags, or my view of the file? OTOH, if I can pass you my view of the file, you might be able to do one of the following:

1. Delete it altogether.
2. Accept it, and use it.
3. Modify it.
4. Extend it.

For some collaborative operations this could be very helpful, surely.

I do find Apple's tag implementation is not too helpful, even for a single user who knows what he/she is doing/wants. Copying a file does not copy the tags. Sending a file in email (e.g to onself) does not copy/send the tags. Thus Apple's implementation is only slightly useful - though having said that it is still pretty useful for active projects. Pulling up attachments relevant to a project to send via email is very much easier than having to search all over the file system.

[Dave2002]

I do wonder, today, whether some features, such as tags can actually stress out the machines. Mind you, the problems could be due to applications.

I have had a version of Word (Mac 2012) open today - with a large number of windows - which finally I closed. I probably had Firefox open too, and then when I tried to save one file using tags everything went slow, and I had that revolving colour wheel thing. I couldn't even get to the Apple - top left icon to Force Quit anything, so I had to go into Terminal, and start killing off processes (top - to list processes, with PID numbers, than kill -9 PID) eventually I regained Force Quit capability, and it looked as though Finder wasn't responding, so I did a relaunch from there. That didn't work too well, so I went back to Terminal, spotted the Finder PID, and killed it explicitly, then restarted.

Eventually regained control, though currently Force Quit seems to be showing two copies of the Finder.

Mmmm ... maybe back to Terminal to check. Maybe have to power off and on again to try to get this sorted. I can only see one copy of Finder using top in Terminal. Puzzled.

Gremlins in El Capitan - which seems sometimes to become grindingly slow. Tried killing Finder in Terminal, and still showing two copies in Force Quit.

Time to finish what I'm doing and reboot, I think.