Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
General brainstorming for Note-taking software
Paul Keith:
Depends on the tags. I would say most tags aren't. That's partially why I used the verb pretend.
My Documents for example. Hated it, but it's instant. You can immediately drop it.
Tags you can't once you actually have to apply that more-than-one list mindset not just set it up. For example, you're still only using one list in Google Reader despite labels which is how most tags function.
Once you have to actually think about the concept of utility or the containment by which utility is on there, it's tough to think in Usability. You'd have to be passive or have pre-biased information because if you start contemplating, most tags will read like "Usability-Windows8", not Usability: Windows8; Usability: NotWindows8.
...and that's just the basic tag. Editing hell, review data, bookmarks...you slowly need to cheat with quickfind bars or trees or accept hashtags and then you have to cheat your instinct and then you have to dumb yourself down while adding unnecessary complexity.
The long term result I feel is that it's more like two-headaches-in-one list of stuff and the more-than-one list of theory is only for data that don't need two lists to begin with and can function with just one or only need an additional set of tag for filtering and not reviewing and even there, if you look at the public lists that really host bulk data like delicious bookmarks, it didn't really change the bookmarking world for filtering. People still used Google Alerts instead of Delicious. Curation is still a much more straightforward way to have more-than-one-lists. Multiple views is still a better split for two lists. Tags are still present. They still can be useful. Just the concept seems to be built on novelty (and the talent/intelligence of the user relative to his goal for the data inside that list) no different from users pretending you can have priorities with colored icons or bullet points can instantly make good outliners or the multitude of data that don't need to be organized that are sprinkled with tags.
The only true more-than-one of tags,conceptually, in my opinion is that it's a parasite for more than one data. It's like being able to find two clean dogs when you bury the other dogs in garbage. Yes, that might seem like more-than-one but can the human data interpreter (the brain) really still be filtering through two attributes like "find" and "dog" or are they simply pretending that's what they're doing only to be subconsciously looking for the sole adjective "clean"? What then? At least folders are a dumpster. You don't want them, you throw them out. You need more-than-one, it's the fault of desktop OS for not popularizing the revision feature found in Dropbox and offering it for free. Tags? You can co-exist with it and organize multiple contextual items so long as your data can exist with the sole list of having multiple parasites. Once you can't live with it for your data, it's no longer more-than-one list. It's one or more parasite eating away at your entire set of jumbled data and needing to be evacuated or exterminated from the old tags so the new parasite of tags can align with your data to brain registration ecosystem of multiple lists for multiple contexts.
clean:
Some musings on tags here:
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=20142&posted=1#post20142 (posts 17 and 18)
Paul Keith:
In other words, on the MACRO level, a tag tree can be as effective as the trees are we know and use all day long: the main items will get a tag "car assurance", and within 1,000 or so main categories, this creates the category / tag "car assurance", as we would create that same category in our big-tree, by placing a heading there... and in the same way the car assurance, in a tag tree, would be placed under car and under assurance, a cloned "car assurance" heading under "car" would provide the car assurances in our UR tree, whilst the "original" would be placed in the "assurances" compartment of our tree.
--- End quote ---
IMO it's wrong. It's a common hole to fall into: Linking tag hell to tag conceptually when analyzing and linking the "visual map" effect of tags to the concept of a sole tag.
Mainly there's two big wrong assumptions here:
Trees being something people know and use
People don't know trees. They're handed trees especially those who don't know how to install or find alternatives to data management.
Once they do, people use programs that don't have trees or tree programs that have more advanced feature.
It's at a macro level that tags work because the brain can still remember some part of the data
This phenomenon fails:
But it's at the MICRO level that tag trees don't function: They ain't able to order these 60 items UNDER the heading / main tag in a way that'd be sensible for accessing these 60 items later on: Our big tree might appear convoluted on the main "tag" level - that's why I advocate the "zero" = PM level on top of it, allowing for creating natural GROUPS of headings -, but on the micro level, on the level of detailed information, it allows for creating, by placing any new item where we want to to place, a LIVE CONTEXT SYSTEM - tagging system FAIL here completely (or force you to do it artificially, by OVER-TAGGING, whilst in our traditional tree, there is NATURAL (and highly beneficial) additional meta data for each item: its very POSITION within the subtree and beneath the corresponding sub-headings there - if a tagging system wants to replicate this micro meta data, there's a tremendous manual work to do for its user (if ever it's possible from what the tagging system offers to begin with).
--- End quote ---
...not because the user went on a micro-level but because he finally took a macro level look at his tree instead of just searching for whatever it is he has bookmarked. The fallacy is just the Dunning-Kruger effect of information management especially PIM. You think you can remember a couple of bullet list so you think it could scale until you start looking at the totality of your data and suddenly your personal data doesn't even say back to you: this part is your personal mission, this is your life, this is your love life. Instead, that's delegated to the novelty of goal pre-planning and most of the working data are just reminders, grocery lists and random article trinkets you can sprinkle to your blog, that depending on your skill, you can sprinkle into a full blown book or academic work.
The short analogy here is to simply say footnotes and bibliographies and other links don't mean shit to the actual PIM user. It's the junk collecting hobby of personal data. That's why tags manage them better than containers. It's easier to find your junk if there are more drawers with less interrelated items inside and you've macro thought the structure of your data instead of micro-think it for future proofing, CRIMPing, backups, contemplation, visualization, inspiration and other long term thoughts that make the tag fail to scale when it finally fails to scale.
Writer:
Hello,
I have tried a few of these, including Keynote, OneNote, TreeDBNotes, Rightnote, Cintanotes, Evernote, and Simplenote. My work primarily revolves around design and journalism. So, I have always felt the need for a software that would be a good mix of collecting abilities, hierarchical categorization, live search and lately 'anywhere access'. Am yet to find one that provides a good mix. Righnote and Simplenote is what I use now.
Writer:
Just noticed that Cintanotes is being offered at a 50% off on their website.
In their latest version history, they have listed a new feature: Simplenotes sync. I haven't tested it yet. However, Alex, the developer, does a good job with new features, and fixes problems quickly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version