The new “tags” view makes me worried, since this is the version just before 2.0. Will working with tags be greatly improved in the next version? Or is there already more to find?
I see the tags if I open info-window, but that’s a relatively powerless tag view.
I also see the tags view in the tags “view”, but that’s relatively powerless too, just being a folder view just showing the “leaf” nodes.
Where are all the tagging tools and tag views and tag preferences?
(I’m waiting for some comments on what’s already available before posting my list of what appears to be missing…)
One nice tag feature is to turn on tags in the navigation bar-makes it unnecessary to open the ‘Info’ pane to find tag data. Also, the documentation has been updated to reflect what has been updated in pb8.
I’m looking forward to additional tagging functionality myself, but why not go ahead and post what you feel is missing? Some of us that have worked with pb8 for a couple of weeks now might have some ideas on how to do what you are looking for, and if not, a good feedback discussion will help Dtech polish the tagging features.
It’s not final or complete, see Known Issues in the Upgrader’s Guide on the disk image:
The tags view is a work in progress and subject to change until the final release. Current feedback is very diverse. Please feel free to comment on the current state of the tag view in our user forum to help us make it useful.
Tagging of multiple selected items via tags bar and Info panel is not yet possible but will be possible in the final release.
though it is handy to be able to just type in the navigational bar (thanks for the hint, this was not obvious from the GUI!), when one adds a lot of tags at the same time, the bar will be crowded. I’d prefer sth. like a HUD (customizable keyboard-shortcut), with autocomplete and recent tags, obviously.
I have not explored everything yet but this (tagging within DTP) really should be much more prominent and obvious: I searched in vain for a menu-item for “tagging” or “tag file(s)” as well as an item for the toolbar. Currently I feel moving files within the database to tag them as cumbersome.
Personally I’d be most happy if it would be possible to – for lack of better word – “gather” openmeta-tags for DTP to make sure to use a base vocabulary. This kind of interaction would be most helpful. I am currently not 100% sure how (well) the interaction with openmeta-baed tags via import or sync (?) will work. One example: I keep my bibliographical data in BibDesk, some of the entrys have a pdf or other file attached. Keywords are applied within BibDesk which are written out as openmeta-tags as well, attached files are “managed” with openmeta-tags as well. So I can keep files together. DTP is for keeping notes, arrange and manage interaction etc. and it would be most handy to have a as close as possible interaction
possible.
Something more:
The idea for nested tags is very good, but how to add nested (hierarchical) tags as such ( at the time of tagging)? What about a special delimiter like:
Same with info-panel: not all tags applied are shown, panel cannot be adjusted to show all tags (only spotlight-comments-area can). See screenshot 2 down below)
This should be changed.
The tags-view is (in my case) just a very long list, cannot be sorted differently, what about a search for tags to be shown THEN worked on? I like that I can select several tags and the display of files changes accordingly, still some kind of tags-search (please with some boolean magic possible) would be helpful.
The Tags view seems deeply flawed and unintuitive to me. Here are the things I expected the interface to do but aren’t available or do something very unexpected:
if no tag is selected, no documents are shown: nearly every other implementation of tags I see uses tags to narrow down selections, e.g. Evernote, Journler, etc. So if no tag is selected you should see all your documents, not none. The DN approach is logical but not useful
there’s no obvious way to see untagged documents
if you select multiple tags you get the intersection of the two categories, whereas I expected the union. I suppose I could live with this (it’s more logical, I suppose) if there was also a way to get the union
I expected that dragging a Tag onto the document window would assign the tag to the document. Instead it just puts the plain text of the tag (not a link) into the document (assuming it’s an editable document) - I can’t think when this would ever be useful to me
Since the former method of drag&drop to assign a tag to a document didn’t work, I tried dragging a tag onto the document filename. Not only did this not work but it has a very dangerous outcome that I would never have predicted: all the documents previously assigned to the tag you drag onto the document name also get tagged with the tag selected to view the document. This is so much the reverse of what you expect I don’t know where to begin! So in my case, I’ve then got some 25 documents assigned a tag that I never intended to assign to them …
and I can’t find a way of deleting unwanted tags from the Tags views (see my other post is.gd/5jvu3)
if I’m in the Tags view and delete a document, I would expect it to be removed from the Tag Group currently viewed but not deleted from the database, but in fact it does get deleted from the database. Again, this is contrary to other implementations of tagging I’m familiar with
First of all: I was really excited yesterday! Finally tags are there! Wonderful! Thank you!
After playing with the feature, I found that the use of tags in DT is indeed special. First of all there is the distinction between “group tags” which appear grey in tags view and “tag group tags” which are blue in tags view. It’s great that you can have both: send your documents to a group in your group structure or leave the group structure alone and just use the tags group. But this also makes it counterintuitive - at least for people who are used to other tagging software. For example: I first ended up creating two tags with the same name by tagging a file with a word that was not in my group structure, thereby creating a new group in the tag group. Later I thought that it might be useful to have such a group in my group structure and created it. In tags view I found two tags with exactly the same name - one blue, one grey.
Okay, by now I found out that I can exclude groups from appearing in tags view and - which is even more important - that I can replicate a sub-group of the tag group to other places in my group structure. This would be a useful information for the manual, I think, since it is a unique feature of tagging in Devonthink.
My wish for tags view is: Some tagging software (like Yep or Yojimbo) reduces the number of tags shown in tags view once one tag has been selected. Only the tags which have been used in combination with this tag are left. This makes searching quite easy - especially in a long list of tags. Perhaps there is a way to make this happen which I have not seen so far. Advice is appreciated.
Either by accident or design, this only works one way. Meaning if one creates the tag first, then the group, both will appear in the database. If one creates the group first (gray tag), one cannot create a (blue) tag with the same name.
Related to this, if one has a group structure with multiple sub-groups with the same name:
Group ‘A’
Sub-group ‘Research’
Group ‘B’
Sub-group ‘Research’
Group ‘C’
Sub-group ‘Research’
Then ‘Research’ will appear with a gray tag three times in the Tag view.
Good to see that Tags are a lot better implemented than I thought at first.
A quick-tag panel / tool with selected tags would be very useful - if it allows keyboard shortcuts for tagging (and allows assigning the keys), as well as tagging by clicking.
Those identical grey tags aren’t a good idea to present like that, but I’d expect the devon-team has already thought of the obvious correction there - to allow different parts of the “grey” tree to have different colors. Also, maybe to add a character in front so that Fruit inside Apples, becomes “A fruit”.
The idea that if there is a grey tag with a specific name, then there can’t be a blue one… I don’t like it and I think it’s a bad idea.
It might even be useful to be allowed to have more tag groups that aren’t connected to the tree, for instance a yellow group. Maybe. I’m not sure about this.
I too would like to vote for an “Untagged” implicit tag. Otherwise, finding which documents need to be processed in a large database from before tagging is just about impossible.
Also, in the Smart Groups feature, there is no way to search for “tag is not”, or “Meta Data does not match”. It looks like the operator needs to be a drop-down as well as the field to be matched.
Lastly, for making compound predicates, it would be nice if it supported All, Any, None. In short, to do what the Finder’s smart groups do…
Yes to that, with auto-completion. Tagging can become chaos without an easy way to make consistency possible.
Maybe I misunderstand this, I’m early on in exploring the tags feature. But I have been able to create a subgroup called “tests” in my database, then go into Tags and create not one but TWO groups there with the same exact name, “tests”. These latter are not subgroups within Tags, but at the “top level” so maybe that is why I can create them. But being able to create duplicate Tags at the same level surely isn 't a good thing.
I think it is essential to be able to have the same tag duplicated but with different contents, e.g. suppose I wanted a tag saying “critiques” and I wanted to apply it to things bearing different tags at a higher level–Theory of XYZ could contain tags “critiques” and “support”, and those same sub-folders or sub-tags could occur in a folder Theory of BCD.
Maybe this is a place where the fact that tags and groups are the same thing is not working well? If I put an item into Theory of BCD>critiques, I know where it went; if I simply apply a tag “critiques” then where will it go? Into a new top-level folder? When I wish to tag an item with a tag that is not at the top level, e.g. Theory of BCD>critiques, what will I type?
