MOTUnation.com

But you're trading off one PITA for another. So instead of having to decide which folder to create or use, or what to name something, you have to decide which tag to use. At least with folders there's a top-down hierarchy to sift thru. With tags you're going to have to remember the tag line you ascribed to a document. I don't find that particularly useful.

It's not a matter of using all folders or all tags. There are situations where the tags can be fairly well established and easy to use. A proper tag app will be good at showing the tags you have, and organizing files using them. One of the key differences between folders and tags, is that you can have as many tags as you want to properly identify an item, but it is not that convenient to have the same item in multiple folders. The other thing I find useful about tags is you can use them with email messages, so files and messages all appear together, although I don't know if Apple's implementation does email.

The times that I thought a file should be in more than one folder I simply use Aliases.

This works fine, but is not particularly elegant.

My experience with tags (in other apps) has always been more on the negative and complicated side of things (like having a To-Do list with many different tags. It just doesn't work and that's why I LOVE Omnifocus as opposed to their competition).

I might try them with the Finder just to see how it goes, but so far Spotlight has worked perfectly for me.

...plus you'd have to have them in English and Spanish.

But you're trading off one PITA for another

Not at all. I use them every day in my contact management software.

They work best (or at all) when you have a reason to tag files. I will tag all the files that are best called Thursday afternoons, for example. Most programs that use tags allow you to call up a list from anywhere so that you have a view of all your tags at once.

I'm sure they're great for folks using spreadsheets and doing lots of businessy types of things (don't those folks just use PCs?) but as a full time artist this tag thing just doesn't pop my cork, float my boat, pin my diapers, wash my windows... (what else) oh, organize my files the way I want to. What the eff--- who cares if it's there or not as long as I can still file things in folders.

full time artist this tag thing just doesn't pop my cork

I can't for the life of me understand how they would be useful to me in DP, Finale or a number of other programs I use.

Final Draft and Word? They have had tags for many years (not that I use them...).

Tag. You're it!

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I'm sure they're great for folks using spreadsheets and doing lots of businessy types of things (don't those folks just use PCs?) but as a full time artist this tag thing just doesn't pop my cork, float my boat, pin my diapers, wash my windows... (what else) oh, organize my files the way I want to. What the eff--- who cares if it's there or not as long as I can still file things in folders.

LOL. I'd need tags to classify that post.

Indeed, file it under pops, corks, boats, floats, and trolls!

I've been using tags in the Finder for decades. Color tags. In each storage area, I have a color system. In each case, the colors correspond to some feature or value that I seem to automatically associate with a color. In any case, it's easy to see what the colors are for simply by looking at a tagged file.

There was a time when I thought Apple had done away with colors in the Finder, and I panicked. There are color tags in all my files back to my first color Mac. Color is a big deal to me. I use it extensively in Digital Performer, too. Not always for the same reasons, but I use it in ways that have made me dependent on it; I can't just give it up.

Anyway, tags look like colors in the Finder, according to the preview linked in the original post of this thread. Maybe there are more of them, or maybe they get disconnected from colors after you've done the first 8 or so, but there in the finder it said "Tags" right next to the colors, beside which were custom names.

You can custom name your colors in the Finder right now, and always have been able to do that. I labeled mine in a meaningless way long, long ago, and they still bear those names, even after switching to a lot of different computers over the years. Somehow, those color names always catch up with my OS. Names like "Riding Hood Red," "Curious Yellow," "Sunny Gets Blue," "Deep Purple," "Spalding Gray." Means nothing. Just fun.

Anyway, Tags aren't new; they're just expanded in scope. And they are VERY useful. It gives you another means of selection by attribute in the Finder. That's a good thing.

Shooshie

Prime Mover wrote: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.

Is Mavericks really the name of the OS? Are they embarking on a new naming system involving sports teams? I really despise that. Other than Baseball, I'm a nonfat of team sports. Not that it matters what I am; but surely they're not going to name their operating systems after sports teams. Why not String Quartets? Rock Bands? (well, that one is obvious; getting the rights would be a nightmare) But basketball teams? I'm seriously disappointed in Apple.

Are you referring to the Finder labels? They're not tags. You can't make up any number of them and you can't assign any number of them to an item. Tags are used in other files systems, and were added to OS X two or three years ago, so you could use them with 3rd party applications. I don't think is not a simple extension of labels, unless Apple has hijacked the name and concept.

Shooshie wrote:

Prime Mover wrote: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.

Is Mavericks really the name of the OS? Are they embarking on a new naming system involving sports teams? I really despise that. Other than Baseball, I'm a nonfat of team sports. Not that it matters what I am; but surely they're not going to name their operating systems after sports teams. Why not String Quartets? Rock Bands? (well, that one is obvious; getting the rights would be a nightmare) But basketball teams? I'm seriously disappointed in Apple.

It's a beach isn't it?

bayswater wrote:

Shooshie wrote:

Prime Mover wrote: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.

Is Mavericks really the name of the OS? Are they embarking on a new naming system involving sports teams? I really despise that. Other than Baseball, I'm a nonfat of team sports. Not that it matters what I am; but surely they're not going to name their operating systems after sports teams. Why not String Quartets? Rock Bands? (well, that one is obvious; getting the rights would be a nightmare) But basketball teams? I'm seriously disappointed in Apple.

It's a beach isn't it?

Beaches would make good names. Mountains, rivers, Tourist sites… Anything else!

As for Finder tags -- color labels -- it's all a matter of how you use them. Sure, you can't assign more than one to a file, but they're not metatags in the strict sense of the word. They're still tags, and you can search by them. You can organize the Finder by them. Sort by color. In function, they're a very limited form of tags, and they've always been with us. Well, at least since about MacOS 2.0. Oh… it was called System 2 back then.

I'm just glad they are finally giving us full metatag capability in the whole OS. That's been a serious drawback of the Finder and how the Mac works in general. You have always been able to store comments about a file, but those disappear if you sneeze. I've never seen comments that made it through a system upgrade, or if I have, I don't remember it, because I've tried to use Comments as a sort of meta-tag system. Didn't work.

Tags = welcome and long needed addition to the OS. Even if it's just an expansion of what's already there.