After studying a couple of threads I see why people cannot really get the idea of the tagging mechanism in DTPO. I guess the developer had in mind to accommodate both the ‘nested folder’ user and the user of real tagging workflows who do not know a nested folders hierarchy - just a repository to store the files.
The idea of storing files in nested folders is aiming at digging them up by following a path - as ID of the file - whereas tagging completely dispense with structures and virtually generates an ID ‘on the fly’ depending on the attributes given to the respective file. The advantage of real tagging is you can spare to duplicate folder structures to implement an ID-System based on folders (not speaking of duplicating files).
Thats indeed a change of view if one really embraces ‘tagging’ since that a completely different approach. nested Folders simply do not exist anymore and a search is done by choosing multiple tags.
May be the developer better dump the approach to generate tags from nested structures (though you can switch that behavior off in ‘database properties’) in order to accommodate the users not used to real tagging (despite the fact that this is correct since tags are grouping files) and let people just get used to the idea of adding tags. For all who want to see folders, just create ‘Smarties’ (smart folders).
I understand that a folder-generated tag approach is appealing but it has its shortcomings as seen due to the logical break occurring by intertwining these two different systems.
Of course such an approach entails some other serious changes like overhauling the classify function (means then not moving files into folders but ‘into tags’) and let user more conveniently search for multiple tags (although I’m already very happy with the ability given by the tag-view).
Besides - a fully-fledged Tagging - DTPO solution would definitely give DTPO the edge to withstand the upcoming heat from other tagging software written for OSX which all offer some search capabilities as well.
Of course is DTPO a class of its own.
Well, I do not how to do that to offer both classify for nested folder buffs and for tagging guys but I guess you’ll figure a way out.
It already exists, just go to File > Database Properties, pick the database you want, and click “Exclude from Tagging” Presto, all automatic gray-group tagging vanishes and you are left with only the light blue, user-generated tags, which work the same way as tags work in every other app.
I know. You can even create ‘nested tags’ in this mode by moving a tag onto another one. I just wanted to express that they better drop the gray-tag approach and let people only generate blue ones.
I’m not sure I understand what the advantage is to the approach you suggest, which removes functionality that many of us find useful. For people who only want their own tags, it works already exactly the way you want, just click the checkbox. For people such as myself that disagree with your opinion and like the automatic tags, it also works. For making different choices based upon which database you’re using, boom there it is, you can mix and match to your heart’s content.
What is the possible advantage of crippling the program so that it does less? You can already use it in the way that you want, without forcing this approach on others like myself, who don’t agree with your opinion and find the whole tagging approach as more of a fashion statement or trend then useful way of organizing a high volume of information.
Don’t get me wrong I find tags handy but have nowhere near the level of commitment to them or enthusiasm that you seem to have. This possibly relates to the amount of information one needs to organize.
i kind of agree with you but disagree with you on the usefulness of group tags.
i think they are fine. i think like you, tags are great - but only if you can use them in hierarchical mode. following group setup:
foo
bar
– barish
if i add a file to barish, it is both bar and foo too. so adding 3 tags is fine.
as of now, if i have another subgroup named barish, all my foo-bar-barish files show up there too. which is a problem of retrieval and not adding/inserting.
groups/subgroups for me are (with the introduction of tags) merely a saved search and makes it easier to add tags to a certain file and retrieve my files.
if i don’t have hierarchical tags/groups, adding would take too much time imo. autoclassfication/autotagging doesn’t work on my databases it seems.
of course, if the current behavior is due to bugs, nevermind this post
I see your point and actually do agree. There is no reason to cripple the program and I honestly bow before the architects of this great application which has no match so far.
I just meant that all the confusion expressed by some users in this forum might by based on the (however masterly implemented) bridging between those two different worlds.
It took a long time for me as well to change my behaviour from categorizing my stuff in folders rather than by tags. Retrieving data with tags is so much faster once you get used to it. People are just afraid of being incapable of retrieving a particular information once the big hole (Master repository) has swallowed it. But there again the old saying applies: you only fear what you don’t understand and Knowledge gives confidence
Finally its only a matter of intelligent tagging. One should only ask him/herself: of waht am I thinking when I recall this file (of course you have the AI Search as well as Plan B)
I cannot remember how often I changed my first tagging lists day by day until I got a coherent system which mirrored seamlessly the words coming to my mind when I thought of a certain file. But once this was in place storing and retrieving of data became a piece of cake without navigating to, setting up new and duplicating folder structures and producing doubles and triplets of files in order o have them in every folder…
There is really nothing you cannot do with smart folders if you need to fix a certain selection.
Well, bottom line is: yes the software can do both systems (which is terrific) but causes also the above mentioned confusion…And since the future is tagging (the number of software coming up with tagging capabilities is rising fast) the question remains - quo vadis DTPO. Because a real tag approach causes some severe changes under the hood (like auto-classify etc.) and I’m not sure if the magicians from DEVON may hang on to this ‘serving 2 worlds’ approach forever…
