Neat, I don’t usually though got batches any more. I have to say that adding a tag, for me, means an extra step on import too. I have a system of smart rules that move things from the Global Inbox. I know I could add tags using those. It tends to end up with too many with the same name or so many tag names that it defeats the object. It would be interesting to know how many use tags at all and how thought?
I would add, consider how you want to partition your data (that is put in separate databases). A consideration is size and what you may or may not want to sync with DTTG.
I agree with @rkaplan and in my ‘work’ database, I have to group everything to do with a single client project. I use tags for document types (like report, meeting minutes, proposal etc.) and can use smart folders to list these (or search).
Some folk will go for everything in one database, but I found I got a big jumble of tags. For my cookbook, the groups are types of dish (curries, burgers, deserts etc.) and tags for ingredients. When it was all in one database getting ‘cabbage’ (a food tag) next to ‘contract’ (a work tag) got annoying, so having cookbook in its own database means the tag list in the navigator made sense (all ingredients) and in the work database it is all document types etc.
I actually have several different databases, all which make logical sense for dividing the type of data. Another one is a database for all my bird notes and lists where tagging is based on location. An issue with tags for me is remembering them all, but with separation of the data into different databases, I can have a logical and/or different tagging approach for each database that I can remember!
3 Likes
Exactly. Why not both? Part of the flexibility of digital systems is that there can be more than one way to do things.
1 Like
This never occurred to me. The idea that recipes, financial information, and work-related technical papers should all go in one database struck me as inherently ridiculous.
Then once you accept that some topics belong together and some don’t, the remaining debate is about how granular to make the divisions. Those are databases, then groups within them. Tags come in (for me) at the level where things can potentially belong in more than one place, or where topical divisions conflict with some other grouping that’s important for me. (Vendor vs. date, say, for financial information.)
1 Like
It’s quite common in our experience, especially since people often don’t realize they can make separate databases or choose to only use the Global Inbox.
1 Like
I use an applescript to assist with moving records from the Global Inbox;
assigning name, tags, …
I reflect hierarchy in my tagnames; for example Food-Cabbage, Work-Contract
Been there, Done That 
1 Like
You’ve not really asked how you should organise your files, only if we’ve done a restructure (though I realise it’s hard to answer one without the other!).
I vaguely follow a decimal system with folders that are numbered (discussed briefly in the forum here: Johnny Decimal... and automatic filing? - #7 by MsLogica).
I have done a restructure, as I decided to “promote” a folder to the top tier, reorder my folders and move some files. This was motivated by how I was using my data and a change in my priorities. My only advice for you really is if you want to restructure, commit the time to do it properly. I had to do all of mine manually (re numbering folders, moving files to new files I’d created, etc.), but I did it because I could see that it would make my life easier and eliminate a source of friction. I can’t really say that the upfront time cost was less than the ongoing cost of subpar navigation would’ve been, but it’s improved my quality of life and made it easier.
As ever though, ask yourself how future-you actually navigates these files, then map accordingly.
I like the hierarchy approach to tags. Thanks for sharing.
Have you shared the AppleScript on this forum? Intrigued.
This is an interesting idea.
How do you deal with any PDF or image where the text is not OCRed? Perhaps I need to try this approach and setup a smart rule that OCRs newly added image or PDF so that at least the text content of the item will be available for search.
You should make sure to add appropriate criteria to match only items you need to OCR. Not every image or PDF would necessarily require it.
Yes - I will try and setup a suitable rule.
for PDF it appears I can use this.
Does this look right?
I am assuming those that are type images, I should put in a smart group and manually tag them for OCR and conversion into a PDF - and perhaps should create a new file that is PDF+text. Does this approach make sense?
Thank you @BLUEFROG for chiming in.
If you hold down the option key in the See Also & Classify inspector, “Move To” changes to “Replicate”. That can be handy.
2 Likes
Thank you - this sounds great.
Appears that this will create a new file. I wonder if it is possible to have this new file be in the same group as the original file.
Greedy :). That way I can even address existing files and not move them to an altogether new group.
For a PDF, no it won’t create a new document. For images, logically it will as an image is not a PDF. One format in → one format out. Simple.
That way I can even address existing files and not move them to an altogether new group.
I’m not sure what your intention is here but you need to make sure the result is no longer matched by the smart rule. In my example, the added tag accomplishes that. However, a Move or File action can be used to remove it from the targeted group.