i have been manually naming, filing and storing all the thousands of files i come across in life (work pdfs, work word docs, service provider pdfs, bank, health and family, tax and the list goes on and on… :)). I have been using the johnny decimal system for organizing my files and TBH very happy with it, ie:
and then i name each file based on its folder and topic like this
12.15--2023-09-01--electric
BUT…
its soo much work each week with the hundreds of files i come across to manually name the files and put them in the right place…
I do of course use devonthinks amazing smart rules, but i have many documents in non english (with no OCR options) and in general not every OCR or smart rules always works for me (also have many non PDF files i store)
so im kinda declaring bankruptcy on my current system and reaching out to the amazing community here to pick your brains if there is a better (much less manual and time consuming) process you guys use
i do like the order and detail of the JD system but very open to suggestions for other systems that work for people. TBH the advanced search from devonthink dosent always work in every scenario, for example, non english files, excel sheets, word documents, images etc…
So previously when things were put into large dumps (which i did try previously) it made finding things quick a bit of a pain from my experience…but again open to trying other methods
I do very little “filing” or fancy file naming conventions. I have Groups for “big” categories, e.g. a group for each bank/service provider, document type/topic, etc. When the document is entered I give some thought about if replicating/duplicating to another Group/database the document is warranted along with adding a few tags, if any tag words come to mind. I segregate databases based on which ones I want to sync with iOS devices (a small subset, which includes most importantly the “Works in Progress” database). I also have not done but minor investments in smart rules to do any of this filing.
My bottom line is that I’m not trying to replicate paper filing cabinets.
We’re long past filing cabinets and filing drawers. I rely on navigating the simple Group structure and/or searching with ad hoc criteria or if I think I’m doing the same thing over and over, I save the query as a smart group.
Do my best advice is to try to stop doing all this filing.
Give some thought to what you actually need to retrieve, and if so, how often.
Repeating my comments about the Johnny decimal system in an earlier thread …
The decimal system is folder-based, single-threaded, and optimized for manual retrieval of physical items. Decimal systems are fundamentally based on the premise that you can determine whether something (books, in the case of a DDC library) suits your needs by its name/appearance alone. They do not take advantage of modern computers’ capabilities to process and combine multiple threads of information.
Decimal systems are awesome when you have a physical drawer of paper documents. It’s a different story for cataloging digital information; you’d want to harness the processing power of silicon chips (through search, for example) to expedite the process of cataloging. The JD system definitely do not leverage search or other advanced powers that your computer offers.
While you’re happy with JD (for good reasons!), it’s also true that your system is hindering your productivity.
thx! Well i use many non Latin alphabet documents . (ie arabic, hebrew, japanesse (im an acadmic)) which as far as i know are not ocred and indexed in devonthink (but i may be wrong?)
I’m in the same camp as @rmschne. Stipulating that I in no way collect “hundreds of files” a week, I am very parsimonious in what I put into DEVONthink. I quickly ask “does this have use or meaning to me in the future AND wiil Iwant to correlate this document (or bookmark, clipping, etc.) to other documents” and if so, then it goes to DEVONthink. Intention is everything, when it comes to keeping a document library. The documents I do import are put into relatively broad buckets, and subgroups by topic. I try to keep up with my document gardening throughout the day. The stuff I do not put into DEVONthink goes into big bucket folders in ~/Documents. Spotlight normally doesn’t fail to find what I want, and if I really need concise results I use FoxTrot Pro that will find the documents I need in DEVONthink and in Documents simultaneous.
Search tools are just as important as decisions about document storage. Cultivate a good useful search method for yourself.
I’m curious: why are you trying to shoehorn everything into one database?
If you were writing a book (and who knows, maybe you are! )… you wouldn’t mix your research and drafts in with your recipes. You would use a separate notebook, folder, etc. to keep things related to your book or recipes in their own place.
So why not follow suit and make databases for the different aspects, foci of your (digital) life?
I use the global inbox for collection
My processing is manual, but assisted with an Applescript for automated filing and assigning names and tags
My organization tool is tag methodology; minimal folders (groups)
I’m not into JD; tag Finance-Salary works for me; hierarchy reflected in the tag-name
Over the years I have moved away from the question “where should I file this document?” to the question “what am I going to use this document for?” Perhaps one should also add the question “in what circumstances will I need to find this document?” I believe that approaching the subject of document storage from the point of view of “desired outcomes” may lead to a different way of organising material. I know I am going to have to make an income tax return in April 2025, so any bill, fee, etc. that pertains to the year 2024-25 gets put in a group for 2024-25. I don’t bother to look at what it is for when I file it. Similarly, if I find an interesting article pertaining to some aspect of mental health (my main area of work these days) I will either put it in a group named “anxiety” or “OCD” or some such, or I will tag it with that word. However, I begin to think that it is more important to link together associated items (perhaps through a hub note or map of content) than merely sticking them in the same group. If one can build up a network (especially if it is visual, I find) that seems to me to be more useful than a “bucket” of items. (Anyone else who likes networks might want to investigate Research Rabbit.) I think a lot of academic work is more about associations than categories (though that very much depends of the field of study, I know).
In addition, my experience suggests to me that filing things does not guarantee finding them. Hence I agree with @korm’s suggestion of using FoxTrot Pro. It really is very powerful.
Thank you all for this very interesting and extremely helpful discussion!
@mbbntu and @korm , i have never heard of foxtrot pro, can it also search inside my devonthink databases? how does it differ from the excellent built in devonthink search? (which can also search externally indexed files in devonthink?)
@BLUEFROG i have no specific reason to use a single database, it just never seemed to bother me using 1 central database and i have used folders as a way to divide areas and categories (as opposed to using a different database for each areas and categories?)
It seems that if i follow this great discussion that most people are using the “bucket” approach for most of their files…
I have to say did try that a year ago, where i had 2-3 of these buckets. But then i always had a super hard time finding stuff each time…again maybe i did things wrong, maybe its the fact i dont only use Latin alphabet documents etc.
Would be super appreciative if you guys could post some real life examples of how you use the “bucket” system and seach for specific files , ie i need all electric bills from dec 2022 to march 2024, or i need the reimbursement excel sheet from my Japan visit
so also appreciate that i need a better way of thinking what i would need to come back to at some stage or what would probably rarley be looked at again. i do want to keep both types in devonthink though so perhaps that would go to an archived “bucket”?
really appreciate all your fantastic comments, thanks so much
it just never seemed to bother me using 1 central database and i have used folders as a way to divide areas and categories (as opposed to using a different database for each areas and categories?)
I’m not advocating something like “a database per chapter of the book” but the granularity is up to you. The divide can be quite broad and even just a work and a personal database is a good setup for many.
But then i always had a super hard time finding stuff each time
How are you trying to “find stuff”? Via a toolbar search or navigating through the database’s structure? Neither is right or wrong and both are useful in their own way.
I’d recommend reading The Collector’s Fallacy on zettelkasten.de. It’s useful even if you don’t use the Zettelkasten method (I don’t really adhere to it).
Have a look at the FoxTrot site. It can work happily with DT.
If a database has a Spotlight index, FoxTrot Pro can deal with it.
I want to clarify: if I need to search solely in the open DEVONthink databases, then nothing can possibly be better than searching with the built-in Find command. It is beautiful and more efficient than any other app’s search routine.
I use FoxTrot Pro when I want to search across the whole machine, including DEVONthink, or search a subset, including or not including DEVONthink.
I’m with you on this. Increasingly, it makes sense to spend time arranging your files only if doing so facilitates learning. Some people engage better with content if they spend time putting it into categories or hierarchies, just as others like to put stuff out on a whiteboard and draw connections here, there and everywhere.
But with amazing tools like DTP and other apps that support super-fast, thorough and even intelligent searching, there’s a case to be made for just stuffing content into your computer or cloud space and letting search tools and DT’s Smart Groups “organize” them on the fly depending on the need of the moment.
That said, your mention of items that might not be reliably picked up by search tools may pose a problem. I’ll be interested to see what DT users have to say about this.
If you think about what you are going to use documents for, or what they are associated with (instead of thinking where to put them) you can create “overview” notes (or hub notes or maps of content or index notes, depending on what you want to call them) which contain a list of documents that pertain to that subject or topic. And the fact that you can use DT item links means that you can have that list anywhere on your computer and still access all the items on it. In my own case, I do a lot of work in Obsidian these days, and try to build notes with links to others. The screenshot is of a rather scrappy note I am still working on, with a link to an item in DT, just for illustration.
Why are you collecting hundreds of files per week?
Typically, that volume of material means some level of automation is involved: a computer somewhere is generating invoices, or reports, or something like that. In that case, can you use automation – either on your end or at the source – to pre-file the material so that you don’t have to handle it directly?
How much of this material do you need to actually handle? If you need to personally review hundreds of files per week then, well, that’s your job because you aren’t going to have time for anything else. But it’s more likely that most of it can be either deleted immediately or immediately archived without your direct intervention.
As noted, DT is a German company. They are by no means limited to English-only search. So probably the single most useful thing you can do is figure out how to manage the non-English materials you receive. Do they have a text layer at all? Then you can use smart rules based on their text content, no matter what language it’s in.
Many interesting thoughts in there, but the the title one is erroneous itself. “Knowing about” is the boundary between “knowledge” and “absence of it” - a first and necessary step from last to first. When you don’t see this boundary - you fall into “knowledge paradox” (when I don’t know about what I don’t know - I tend to think, that I know everything). Opposite - is when you stop at this boundary - is equally bad thing, which may be called “collector’s fallacy”, “fake knowledge”, “major result of higher education” and etc.
)… you wouldn’t mix your research and drafts in with your recipes. You would use a separate notebook, folder, etc. to keep things related to your book or recipes in their own place.