3 ms·

This tagging idea resurfaces every few years. I have to confess I don’t really see where the revolutionary improvement is. Filenames are already namespaced tags

by marrs 5y ago

This tagging idea resurfaces every few years. I have to confess I don’t really see where the revolutionary improvement is. Filenames are already namespaced tags and symlinks allow for multiple tags. Not quite the same thing, I know, but close enough for tagging to appear to me to be a convenient enhancement rather than something game changing. And as you imply, when you have a lot of files that you need to organise, you tend to start compiling them into directories.

imiric 5y ago
So your solution to organizing files... is more files? How would multiple files use the same "tag" under that scheme, without duplicating it everywhere? Tags are very powerful if used properly. They describe sets by definition and allow quick filtering with intersections and other set operations. If the filtering is a bit smarter it can support boolean operators, or use tag distance and order as a meaningful data point so that e.g. "discussion board" doesn't return the same results as "discussion snow board". They're a more flexible way to organize data than hierarchical directories. Hierarchy can easily be expressed with tags (use any character as separator, e.g. "os.linux"), but files and directories are not nearly as expressive enough for all the use cases tags can be used for.
- u210601 5y ago
  I've been working on a file organization system that incorporates tags, and I must say I agree with the GP. Tags improve display and search over hierarchies, but they require no less discipline on the part of the user. Without some way to automatically mass-assign meaningful tags to items, which is an insanely difficult problem in the general case, the user is forced to manually tag every single item they add to the system. AI could help do this, but not much. First, consider that mistagging an item can make it practically impossible to find again. Second, consider that semantic tagging can be almost arbitrarily abstract; imagine tagging a text document with "cyberpunk" or an image file with "parody".
  - heisenbit 5y ago
    The genius of Google search was leveraging hyperlinks to add semantics. The only way I can see something somewhat equivalent happening is by exposing all my interactions incl. e.g. the juggling and browsing of other documents beyond the one worked on to search. I would find this scary.
- marrs 5y ago
  > So your solution to organizing files... is more files? How would multiple files use the same "tag" under that scheme, without duplicating it everywhere? You could put the same file in multiple directories. You could have a file in ~/vat and symlink it to ~/urgent and ~/accountant.
  - imiric 5y ago
    You're right, that could work in theory. In practice it would be difficult to manage and keep track of all the links, update them if the file is moved, etc. I suppose hard links would avoid that, so that might be a reasonable way to implement tags, I agree. My main goal would be to manage this via a tag-like UI, so that I don't have to do this manually. And at that point I might as well just store the metadata in a proper DB instead of the filesystem...
    - marrs 5y ago
      I'm not dismissing the utility of tags, and I like your idea. I'd definitely install it as an application and give it a go. I'm really addressing the argument that tags are a revolutionary change that should replace the directory-based filesystem entirely. The cost seems too high to justify the benefit.
      - imiric 5y ago
        Yeah, it still requires management and discipline from the user for it to be useful. FWIW I use Pinboard daily and finding something among thousands of bookmarks is a breeze. I can usually find what I'm looking for with a single tag or an intersection of just two tags. Finding anything on the filesystem is much more difficult, even with good directory structure discipline. I'm not actually interested in building such a system, it's been done before[1,2]. Though I haven't actually used any extensively, since it does require a shift in how file management is done, and I'm quite familiar with filesystems to bother to change, but it's on my list. :) [1]: https://tmsu.org/ https://tmsu.org/ [2]: https://www.tagsistant.net/ https://www.tagsistant.net/

by marrs 5y ago

imiric 5y ago

So your solution to organizing files... is more files? How would multiple files use the same "tag" under that scheme, without duplicating it everywhere? Tags are very powerful if used properly. They describe sets by definition and allow quick filtering with intersections and other set operations. If the filtering is a bit smarter it can support boolean operators, or use tag distance and order as a meaningful data point so that e.g. "discussion board" doesn't return the same results as "discussion snow board". They're a more flexible way to organize data than hierarchical directories. Hierarchy can easily be expressed with tags (use any character as separator, e.g. "os.linux"), but files and directories are not nearly as expressive enough for all the use cases tags can be used for.

u210601 5y ago
I've been working on a file organization system that incorporates tags, and I must say I agree with the GP. Tags improve display and search over hierarchies, but they require no less discipline on the part of the user. Without some way to automatically mass-assign meaningful tags to items, which is an insanely difficult problem in the general case, the user is forced to manually tag every single item they add to the system. AI could help do this, but not much. First, consider that mistagging an item can make it practically impossible to find again. Second, consider that semantic tagging can be almost arbitrarily abstract; imagine tagging a text document with "cyberpunk" or an image file with "parody".
- heisenbit 5y ago
  The genius of Google search was leveraging hyperlinks to add semantics. The only way I can see something somewhat equivalent happening is by exposing all my interactions incl. e.g. the juggling and browsing of other documents beyond the one worked on to search. I would find this scary.
marrs 5y ago
> So your solution to organizing files... is more files? How would multiple files use the same "tag" under that scheme, without duplicating it everywhere? You could put the same file in multiple directories. You could have a file in ~/vat and symlink it to ~/urgent and ~/accountant.
- imiric 5y ago
  You're right, that could work in theory. In practice it would be difficult to manage and keep track of all the links, update them if the file is moved, etc. I suppose hard links would avoid that, so that might be a reasonable way to implement tags, I agree. My main goal would be to manage this via a tag-like UI, so that I don't have to do this manually. And at that point I might as well just store the metadata in a proper DB instead of the filesystem...
  - marrs 5y ago
    I'm not dismissing the utility of tags, and I like your idea. I'd definitely install it as an application and give it a go. I'm really addressing the argument that tags are a revolutionary change that should replace the directory-based filesystem entirely. The cost seems too high to justify the benefit.
    - imiric 5y ago
      Yeah, it still requires management and discipline from the user for it to be useful. FWIW I use Pinboard daily and finding something among thousands of bookmarks is a breeze. I can usually find what I'm looking for with a single tag or an intersection of just two tags. Finding anything on the filesystem is much more difficult, even with good directory structure discipline. I'm not actually interested in building such a system, it's been done before[1,2]. Though I haven't actually used any extensively, since it does require a shift in how file management is done, and I'm quite familiar with filesystems to bother to change, but it's on my list. :) [1]: https://tmsu.org/ https://tmsu.org/ [2]: https://www.tagsistant.net/ https://www.tagsistant.net/