Make an Annotation with Links, Notes, Tags v2

[jprint714]

Finally, one quick functional question… What’s the best ways to locate tagged documents through selecting a certain combination of tags? For instance, if I had tags for “Europe,” “Dogs,” “Portugese Water Dogs,” “Research Later,” and wanted to find all research topics relevant to Portugese water dogs and research later

Smart groups or advanced search, but maybe I am not understanding the questions properly.

So basically, I was just wondering how best to run an advanced search – one that would be based on just select tags (to find files based on convergence of select People / Issues). Make sense?

Just wondering if there’s a way to de-select the default checked box for “Set annotation date”? I’m not sure I understand why it’s the default option… I guess that if one were to instantly create tags for a document the moment that it comes out it would be useful – is that the point? In my case, I often annotate documents that are sometimes a bit dated, so that feature doesn’t benefit me. Unless I’m missing some point, which is entirely possible!

In my workflow the dates of document are crucial, and I want my annotations to have the same dates as the documents that are referred to. That way a smart group for a particular time period also shows the annotations for the same time period.

I hear you, and I totally appreciate that. For me, I typically save (or convert) my files as PDF so that I can annotate them. So, the date of the original document (i.e., it’s publication date) doesn’t necessarily match the date the document was converted / saved as a PDF…and as wonderful as your script is, I don’t think it would be able to make that distinction, correct?

Anyway, I thank you for your suggested fixes! That’s really helpful. I assume that there are particular reasons why the dates of document are crucial to your workflow…

You can also change the name of the sub group tags by editing these lines:

property groupTag1 : "Issues"
property groupTag2 : "People"

That’s also super useful… Is there any easy way to permanently keep the “None” tag from re-emerging?

Also, is there another, easier way to select multiple tags under the main Annotations tags? Like you @Frederiko, I also have a “followup” tag (as you have in your illustrated example) along w/ a few other more specific research-related tags, so…I would love to figure out how to include these various tags, apart from having to write out each tag name, separated by a semi-colon (IF possible!).

No its not possible. Autocomplete only works on the first tag. The only reasonable alternative way would be to have several tag fields in the same way as sub group tags are handled.

Gotcha. That would be useful, but I assume that would mean overhauling the script to accommodate more tag fields, right…? I’m not suggesting that – just wondering.

For various reasons, including the type of documents that I work with and I was finding that that my annotations lacked sufficient context when I returned to them, I have moved to almost exclusively using the version of the script that clips a whole page or more from the pdf. I can then markup the clipped page with the highlight and pdf annotation tools. That way I see the annotated passage in context and the full document is a one click away. Its definitely a more useful approach if you are working with documents, such as historical manuscripts or diagrams, where ocr is not very useful and where one or two lines of description do not fully convey the complexity of the annotation.

I’m not sure which version of the script this refers to…and if it suggests I’ve been using the wrong version! I hope not. I think the version I’m using comes from this part of the post:

[url]Put up Example page]

Are you referring to some other script? If so, does this other script you’re referring to still comport with the ‘one thought - one notecard’ approach (as Bill de Ville described it? I ask because it seems like you’re suggesting a move from a more granular tagging system (i.e., the one here) to one that includes using large chunks of text (in order to provide a fuller context). Is that correct?