Why Apple's "Tags" will change the way we organize files

[Prime Mover]

If you haven't already gone over there, check out http://www.apple.com/osx/preview/ for a preview of the new OS X, the new gem with a name I will never ever utter.

Of the listing of new features, one little one caught my eye, and when I opened up the description, I realized that this update will forever change the way we organize our files. It may take years to fully develop, and for other OSs to implement it, but I think we can be sure that for the traditional hierarchical file system, the days are numbered.

This is an idea I first considered about 8 years ago, and even wrote up an essay on it, I believe I may have even passed it on to Apple. It's an old concept, a simple one, but infinitely effective. The idea is to put keyword tags on every file that's created. And instead of organizing files hierarchically, files are organized non-linearly and called up souly by keyword searches. It may sound like a recipe for disaster, but if implemented correctly, could be actually fairly similar to how we organize files today, but a lot more powerful. One simply has to transplant the current system over. Instead of creating folders, we create keyword macros, maybe even these keywords can be organized hierarchically in a very similar manner that folders are today. The difference is that the file actually lives in one giant library, sort of like a song in iTunes. The benefit is that hierarchical systems, while great for many things, can break down in cases where there is need for intense cross-referencing. If you still want to organize keywords hierarchically, that's a good way of going, except there's nothing stopping you from having duplicates of keywords in other categories, where-as creating endless amounts of file aliases and shortcuts becomes tedious. You may not even notice, at first, that there is a difference from the traditional hierarchical system, except that it's far more flexible and much faster to navigate.

Of course, this is down the road. The first implementations will likely be secondary and a bit simplistic, but if this is developed, it could completely revolutionize the way we work with files. One huge advantage is that it will GREATLY reduce the number of windows we open. Instead of leaving a Digital Performer project folder open, a photoshop artwork folder, and an InDesign project folder, just to work on material for finalizing an album (as I'm doing now), you can just call up the necessary keywords, and they'll all appear in the same place, and you can work cross programs or other distinctions at will.

[bayswater]

Tags have been supported in OS X for a long time, but managing them required a 3rd party app like Yep, or the free Tagit. Any tags created with these apps are used in Spotlight. I've been using them for about three years to keep track of receipts and invoices and the like. It's a convenient supplement to the more basic methods of organizing and locating information, but hasn't turned out to be that much of a change in practise.

[Prime Mover]

It's a convenient supplement to the more basic methods of organizing and locating information, but hasn't turned out to be that much of a change in practise.

And that's probably the best verdict one can give. Today's hierarchies work fine until they don't. I think the best outcome would be a system that people will scarcely recognize the difference until it's necessary.

I think the biggest difference with it being done first-hand is that creating infrastructure will force developers to create their own tags, instead of leaving it completely to the user.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but tags would require the user to enter words into some "file info" kind of thing that references file content. Is that correct? How exactly would that work? I know how it works in Spotlight and Get Info boxes. What is different about what you guy are talking about? I really don't know.

[bayswater]

I don't know how Apple plans to implement their tag manager. With the one I use, I do a search that brings up a set of files in a window, and then I type one or more keywords I want associated with these files. These are stored in the metadata for the file, and are used in any OS X search.

The advantage is it gets you out of the limitations of using file system hierarchies to organize files. But the reality for me is that a hierarchical file system is good enough most of the time.

[Prime Mover]

It really reminds me of the differences I face at work. In commercial production, hierarchies work fine, with all of our projects organized by client. But for News (who are notoriously horrible at organization to begin with), it's incredibly difficult for them to organize their footage by category, especially when you're talking about thousands of files and back catalog footage of 10 years. You have video of students training to work on the alaska pipeline... do you file it under "Pipeline" "Education" "Local Jobs", what? That said, they don't even try to organize their crap, and tags wouldn't solve their problems of sheer laziness.

[James Steele]

Seems to me that from what I saw of a Final Cut Pro X demo, Apple was pushing this concept on video editors as well? Less thinking of putting clips in "bins" but having tags, etc. and finding footage in a similar way?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

The thought of entered meta data for my library and other non-music docs seems crazy. Regardless of what I use to describe it, it would never be what I think I'm looking for when I was looking for a particular piece of music.

[Prime Mover]

It'll be a lifesaver for those of us in the video world.

[bayswater]

The thought of entered meta data for my library and other non-music docs seems crazy. Regardless of what I use to describe it, it would never be what I think I'm looking for when I was looking for a particular piece of music.

Right, it doesn't work for stuff like that where the categories are partly subjective. It's the same for samples. Waste of time tagging them too.

But for things that are more cut and dried, it helps. E.g., I tag any PDF manual I get as "manual". Then it's easy to get a list of all the manuals, although they're stored all over the place. I tag invoices, receipts etc with a year and a general category, whether it personal or business, etc. and that helps locate specific items when I need them.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Isn't it just as easy to make a folder called "Manuals?" I have one as I bet you do. I like the filing cabinet method over the fuzzy logic method (if that's what this is) since humans tend to organize things in piles and rows, etc. I don't think I'd like a pile of files organized by what some meta data tag says they're supposed to be. I like similar kinds of things grouped together. It's easy enough to find stuff now and I don't see any advantage in changing the paradigm.

[FMiguelez]

This concept of tagging has been around in time/project management apps for years, and it is not as useful or revolutionary as people may think. Actually, it can create more problems than it solves, and it is not as efficient as it sounds. YMMV.

[Guitar Gaz]

Isn't it just as easy to make a folder called "Manuals?" I have one as I bet you do. I like the filing cabinet method over the fuzzy logic method (if that's what this is) since humans tend to organize things in piles and rows, etc. I don't think I'd like a pile of files organized by what some meta data tag says they're supposed to be. I like similar kinds of things grouped together. It's easy enough to find stuff now and I don't see any advantage in changing the paradigm.

I do exactly the same - and find the idea of a supreme higher power organising my mess of files a bit strange. It sounds like over-engineering a problem that isn't really a problem. Now if they could do something to tidy up the mess of filing in the physical world that would be great - a sort of iRobot..........

[MIDI Life Crisis]

iHazel.

[bayswater]

Isn't it just as easy to make a folder called "Manuals?"

It's easier, and just having a folder is all you need in most cases. But in some cases it's not what you want, and sometimes it's not as effective. First, you might not want all the documents that are manuals (or whatever) in one specific folder. Also, you might want to tag them with other identifiers. You might want to categorize the manuals several different ways. Then you have to decide which category to use for the high level folder, and which to use for lower level subfolders, and replicate the subfolder structure under each high level folder. WIth tags you don't have to do any of this -- you tag them the way you want, and leave the files wherever the happen to be in the file system.

If you've ever asked, should I put this file in this folder, or that folder, tags makes the question go away -- you give it both tags. Tags are just keywords for the Finder.

Looking at Apple's UI for tags in the Finder, it's not all that useful. It shows the tags in the sidebar. Over a few years, I've generated a few hundred tags, and having them all listed in the sidebar would be pointless. But they work really well with spotlight searches and smart folders.