4 ms·

Absolutely no. For all the reasons listed here: https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-folders https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-fo

Absolutely no. For all the reasons listed here: https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-folders https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-folders

Mizoguchi 3y ago
There's a lot of nonsense in that article, talking about evolutionary conditioning to alphabetical folder organization. Hundreds of millions of humans can't organize their documents alphabetically because they don't have an alphabet. They don't seem to have a problem with that.
- thechao 3y ago
  I thought most languages have a collating order — I think even a slightly generous reading is what they mean by 'alphabetical'? Even Chinese (an important edge-case) has the traditional radical-and-stroke ordering mechanism.
f1shy 3y ago
The algorithm at the end is what I go through every single time I search for something. I think this article has a point!
- nequo 3y ago
  The algorithm at the end: Start -> Open Folder -> End In reality, natural language uses synonyms that often start with different letters. So without numbers, I still need to scan every directory one by one. With numbers, I assign categories according to the phase of the process in which the item occurs. For example, 1 plans |- A first draft |- B Lisa's notes `- C design 2 analysis |- A exploratory `- B design implementation 3 deliverables |- A May 2023 report |- B June 2023 presentation `- C August 2023 report I can limit my search to folders and items that are in the low/medium/high range, according to what I am looking for. But alphabetically sorted, this directory structure would look much more ad hoc: analysis |- design implementation `- exploratory deliverables |- August 2023 report |- June 2023 presentation `- May 2023 report plans |- Lisa's notes |- design `- first draft
tomjakubowski 3y ago
Collation order is not necessarily best for organizing. Many of us think spatially. Having related things near each other can be useful. Same with putting the most commonly used or most important things near the top.

Absolutely no. For all the reasons listed here: https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-folders https://heyluddite.com/post/4043411544/how-to-name-folders

Mizoguchi 3y ago

There's a lot of nonsense in that article, talking about evolutionary conditioning to alphabetical folder organization. Hundreds of millions of humans can't organize their documents alphabetically because they don't have an alphabet. They don't seem to have a problem with that.

thechao 3y ago
I thought most languages have a collating order — I think even a slightly generous reading is what they mean by 'alphabetical'? Even Chinese (an important edge-case) has the traditional radical-and-stroke ordering mechanism.

f1shy 3y ago

The algorithm at the end is what I go through every single time I search for something. I think this article has a point!

nequo 3y ago
The algorithm at the end: Start -> Open Folder -> End In reality, natural language uses synonyms that often start with different letters. So without numbers, I still need to scan every directory one by one. With numbers, I assign categories according to the phase of the process in which the item occurs. For example, 1 plans |- A first draft |- B Lisa's notes `- C design 2 analysis |- A exploratory `- B design implementation 3 deliverables |- A May 2023 report |- B June 2023 presentation `- C August 2023 report I can limit my search to folders and items that are in the low/medium/high range, according to what I am looking for. But alphabetically sorted, this directory structure would look much more ad hoc: analysis |- design implementation `- exploratory deliverables |- August 2023 report |- June 2023 presentation `- May 2023 report plans |- Lisa's notes |- design `- first draft

tomjakubowski 3y ago

Collation order is not necessarily best for organizing. Many of us think spatially. Having related things near each other can be useful. Same with putting the most commonly used or most important things near the top.