63 replies to this topic

[jbenson2]

Regarding the benefits of tags, for me it is the consistency of them. Believe it or not, one day I might tag something "email" and the next day "mail". There are a million other examples of this. By having a not-too-crazy list of tags, I am sure to use the same name every time. Also, tags can be like an umbrella over the concept of your note. Your note may cover a concept without ever actually using the name/description of that concept. Tagging solves this, but I guess adding this to the note body does as well, so...um.

I use a mnemonic trick to help stick with the same tag. Many of my tags have a 3 letter prefix.
http://discussion.ev...dpost__p__80338

I agree with the umbrella concept for using a tag when the word is not actually used. (Nanny_state, Politically_correct)

A single tag also helps when there are different spellings.
For example, for the following 5 spelling variations I use the single tag (tag:"Gaddafi Muammar")

Moammar Gaddafi
Muammar Gaddafi
Moammar Gadhafi
Muammar el-Qaddafi
Muammar al-Gaddafi

[JMichael]

Some more of my thoughts on this topic, i.e. tagging and organizing in general:

First of all Metadata is essentially data about data.

Metadata is infinite - metadata itself is data, it is possible to create metadata about metadata, metadata about metadata about metadata and so on.

In digital world everything could be both data and metada though, depending on the context...

Data and metadata can change their roles... the only distinction between metadata and data is that metadata is what you already know and data is what you’re trying to find out.

From David Weinberger:

There used to be a difference between data and metadata. Data was the suitcase and metadata was the name tag on it. Data was the folder and metadata was its label. Data was the contents of the book and metadata was the Dewey Decimal number on its spine. But, in the Third Age of Order (see the previous issue), everything is becoming metadata...

Hi May, I'm coming late to this party, and I haven't carefully read everything after the above quote.
You pose an interesting question.

However, I have to strongly disagree with your assertions about metadata.

It is a simple matter of definition. I subscribe to your first definition: "Metadata is essentially data about data"

Therefore, by definition, everything is NOT metadata.

Simple example: The author and date of an article, book, etc do NOT change the contents of the article. If you change the author or date, the contents are still just as valid or invalid. The author and date may influence your evaluation of the contents, but the contents stand alone. It is like taking a blind testing of wine. The wine tastes the same regardless of its label.

Next, metadata is NOT infinite. We choose what metadata we think is important.
In the end, that is what really makes metadata important and useful.
We reduce thousands/millions of words down to a few select fields/values that are useful to us.

When you take a digital picture, the camera encodes selected metadata.
When you process the picture later, that is all the metadata you have.
Now you may analyze the picture and determine some technical attributes, but that is NOT the same as pre-defined, provided, metadata.

Having selected, limited metadata is both the benefit and limitation of metadata.

So, when a system is designed, content and metadata are clearly separated.
Don't confuse the ability to do a full text search with metadata.

The metadata that Evernote provides is very, very limited, IMO.
For example, many of us would very much like Evernote to add a metadata field: Due Date.

Metadata is only useful to us in retrieving data if we can remember (or be prompted) the metadata values when making the search.
This is why, IMO, that use of Tags is far superior to use of keywords in the Title.
I can easily get/see my list of Tags to select the tag I want to search on.
I don't know how one does this with Title keywords. That doesn't work with my memory.

[peterfmartin]

I would caution the beginner, however, against adding 30 tags to each note to cover every little thing. For instance, I could add a lab report from my last blood work and tag it: Lab, blood, doctor, cholesterol, iron, sugar, diabetes, HA1C, triglycerides, etc. but the best thing for me is to simply label it: Jim, Lab, 2011, 12 - December. The rest of the information is in the note itself and can be searched when needed.

I'm someone who adds a lot of tags (arguably far too many, based on the utility and efficiency of the time spent adding them and later using them to retrieve notes). I've been trying to think about whether I can trust both Evernote and myself to remember and find tags notes just with keyword searches. While I've been coming around to trusting myself a bit more (for example, now I clip a lot of web pages without tagging them, trusting myself to do keyword searches on them and to add the necessary tags in time), I've been losing trust in Evernote's ability to find keywords in notes. Those of you who rely on keyword searches have never had problems of Evernote not returning all notes correctly?

[jbenson2]

I'm getting older so I let Evernote tags help me in the memory arena.

For instance, the cable modem service went down this morning. I know it went down a couple times earlier this month, so before calling the tech people, I searched for Internet. No luck. Then I searched for tag:Com-Charter and found the 2 other mentions (I had typed in the term "cable down").

Back up and running again.

[May]

Hi May, I'm coming late to this party, and I haven't carefully read everything after the above quote.
You pose an interesting question.

However, I have to strongly disagree with your assertions about metadata.

It is a simple matter of definition. I subscribe to your first definition: "Metadata is essentially data about data"

Therefore, by definition, everything is NOT metadata.

Simple example: The author and date of an article, book, etc do NOT change the contents of the article. If you change the author or date, the contents are still just as valid or invalid. The author and date may influence your evaluation of the contents, but the contents stand alone. It is like taking a blind testing of wine. The wine tastes the same regardless of its label.

Next, metadata is NOT infinite. We choose what metadata we think is important.
In the end, that is what really makes metadata important and useful.
We reduce thousands/millions of words down to a few select fields/values that are useful to us.

When you take a digital picture, the camera encodes selected metadata.
When you process the picture later, that is all the metadata you have.
Now you may analyze the picture and determine some technical attributes, but that is NOT the same as pre-defined, provided, metadata.

Having selected, limited metadata is both the benefit and limitation of metadata.

So, when a system is designed, content and metadata are clearly separated.
Don't confuse the ability to do a full text search with metadata.

The metadata that Evernote provides is very, very limited, IMO.
For example, many of us would very much like Evernote to add a metadata field: Due Date.

Metadata is only useful to us in retrieving data if we can remember (or be prompted) the metadata values when making the search.
This is why, IMO, that use of Tags is far superior to use of keywords in the Title.
I can easily get/see my list of Tags to select the tag I want to search on.
I don't know how one does this with Title keywords. That doesn't work with my memory.

metadata is data about data but anything could be data about some other data...

For example if you want to find out a book's title/author/date it was published/etc. and search for some words/quotes from that book - you used the book's content as metadata(label) and the book's title/author/etc was actually data.

The author and date of an article, book, etc do NOT change the contents of the article.

I see your point. But it doesn't change that anything could be metadata, e.g. author is data about book (metadata) but the book itself could also be data about author, as in my previous example (hence, it also could be metadata)

Yes, from the software's(Evernote) perspective tags, notebooks and etc. are always metadata and notes are always data(I guess). But from the user's perspective anything can be both data and metadata regardless of the format it's stored in.

I can store a list of categories/tags/ in plain notes instead of relying on theTag List (just an example). It'd be data from Evernote's perspective, but not necessarily from my own perspective. 

Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when.

[jefito]

Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when.

This is not necessarily true. Metadata is just data attached to other data. I may not know what the exact date I created a note (created date is metadata, is it not?), but might be interested to know what notes I created in a certain date range. I can find out by querying against the created date metadata.

BTW, it may be of interest to read Wikipedia's definition of metadata: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata. There are apparently a couple of different meanings. The first one is the one I use in this context.

[JMichael]

However, I have to strongly disagree with your assertions about metadata.

It is a simple matter of definition. I subscribe to your first definition: "Metadata is essentially data about data"

Therefore, by definition, everything is NOT metadata.

Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when.

May, I don't think we can have an informed discussion until we agree on terms and definitions.
You have stated several different definitions of "metadata".

As I stated above, I subscribe to this definition: "Metadata is essentially data about data"

Here's a quote from TechTerms.com:

Metadata describes other data. It provides information about a certain item's content.

For example, an image may include metadata that describes how large the picture is, the color depth, the image resolution, when the image was created, and other data. A text document's metadata may contain information about how long the document is, who the author is, when the document was written, and a short summary of the document.

Web pages often include metadata in the form of meta tags. Description and keywords meta tags are commonly used to describe the Web page's content. Most search engines use this data when adding pages to their search index.

I don't see any value in your last definition: "Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when"

[May]

I don't see any value in your last definition: "Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when"

Don't confuse the ability to do a full text search with metadata.

a search term is metadata (data about data which you want to find).
You're confusing data/metadata and organizing information for **browsing** or **searching**. It doesn't matter how the data/metadata is organized, I mean the way we organize information doesn't define what is data and what is metadata from the user's perspective.

Web pages often include metadata in the form of meta tags. Description and keywords meta tags are commonly used to describe the Web page's content. Most search engines use this data when adding pages to their search index.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about what's metadata for a search engine, I'm talking about a user's perspective.

[May]

Metadata is something that you already know. Data is something that you want to find. What is data and what is metadata depends on who you ask and when.

This is not necessarily true. Metadata is just data attached to other data. I may not know what the exact date I created a note (created date is metadata, is it not?), but might be interested to know what notes I created in a certain date range. I can find out by querying against the created date metadata.

BTW, it may be of interest to read Wikipedia's definition of metadata: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata. There are apparently a couple of different meanings. The first one is the one I use in this context.

I don't see any contradiction, I mean you used a date range instead of a certain date as metadata... the date range is something that you know (metadata) and notes within this range is something that you want to find(data)...
If your point was that you didn't know metadata then who entered the date range as a search query?

I may not know what the exact date I created a note (created date is metadata, is it not?)

You're missing my point...
Created date is not always metadata. Note is not always data. Sometimes it's data, sometimes it's metadata, it depends on how you look.
As you said it yourself:

Metadata is just data attached to other data

"created date" is data attached to a note. But it also works the other way around, i.e. a "note" is also just data attached to a "created date" data. Hence my point about what's data or metadata really depends on who you ask and when.

If you use note's content to find out the date it was created on then the "created date" is data and the note itself is metadata.

[JMichael]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about what's metadata for a search engine, I'm talking about a user's perspective.

The definition of metadata is the same for both. The user may not know the term "metadata", but they understand the difference between the content they are looking for, and the data which describes that content.

The definition that both jefito and I quoted has been in use for a long time, and is well-accepted within the computer and IT communities.

In fact, the basic question you posed with this thread, "How much metadata do you apply to notes?" has no meaning if "metadata" and "data" mean the same thing.

[May]

JM, my "definitions" don't contradict each other. The problem with "Data about data" or "data attached to data" (by jefito) definition is that anything could be data about (or attached to) some other data, hence "the only distinction between metadata and data is that metadata is what you already know and data is what you’re trying to find out. " ( a quote from David Weinberger)
It's not a definition but it's the only distinction.

I agree my thread title could be reworded to "how much additional data you manually add to Evernote notes in order find them later by search or browsing"

[JMichael]

@May: Well, then it appears that we will have to agree to disagree.

[May]

What are you disagreeing with exactly?

check this out

There used to be a difference between data and metadata. Data was the suitcase and metadata was the name tag on it. Data was the folder and metadata was its label. Data was the contents of the book and metadata was the Dewey Decimal number on its spine. But... 

http://www.hyperorg....15-04.html#data

[JMichael]

The definition of "metadata".

[May]

I see... Metadata is data about data. I haven't contradicted it though.

You're missing my point because you don't consider relying on search as a way to organize information.

You consider organizing for browsing only in this case.
When you organize for browsing then you have to think carefully about which metadata you'll capture because the physical world limits the amount of metadata you can make available.

But with **search** everything could serve as metadata. I.e. every word in a book could serve as metadata, instead of just author/title/etc.
.

[JMichael]

I see... Metadata is data about data. I haven't contradicted it though.
You're missing my point because you don't consider relying on search as a way to organize information.

You consider organizing for browsing only in this case.
When you organize for browsing then you have to think carefully about which metadata you'll capture because the physical world limits the amount of metadata you can make available.

But with **search** everything could serve as metadata. I.e. every word in a book could serve as metadata, instead of just author/title/etc.
.

May, you are drawing inferences and conclusions about my thoughts that are simply wrong.
You may want to pose these type of assertions as questions.

IAC, I don't see how we can have a meaning discussion, or communicate clearly, unless we can agree on terms and definitions.

The accepted standard definition of metadata does NOT make any assumptions about how it is used (browsing vs searching).

The fact that one can search for both metadata, and for text contained in the content, does NOT make metadata and data the same.
A "word in a book" is NOT metadata. It is part of the content. Just because I can search for it does NOT make it metadata.

[May]

A "word in a book" is NOT metadata. It is part of the content. Just because I can search for it does NOT make it metadata. 

You're disagreeing with the definition of metadata then ("data about data").

a quote from

http://www.thebusine...a_Defintion.php

"In simple terms, Metadata is essentially data about data. A more sophisticated defintion may be - Metadata is structured, encoded data that describe characteristics of information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery, assessment, and management of the described entities."

"Data and metadata can change their roles - a poem would be regarded as data, but if used as lyrics for a song, the entire poem could be attached to an audio file of the song as metadata. Thus data / metadata is very much contextual in defintion."

You're basically not accepting some "data about data" as metadata... 

I mean, suppose I want to find out the name of some song... And I use a word from this song lyrics (which is not metadata according you) to find out the song's name/artist's/etc.
In this example a word from a song is data about some other data, i.e. metadata. The same applies to books and so on. 

or in other words:
suppose I want to make a list of artists (for whatever reason) and I'm going to use all of their song lyrics as metadata to find those artists later, why not? 
This wouldn't work in a physical world because physical world limits the amount of metadata you can make available (since searching is impossible). But in a digital world metadata can be expansionist. It can include the entire text of the book.

And it works both ways, i.e. I can use artist to find lyrics or I can use lyrics to find artist. Hence data / metadata can change their roles.

Does this make sense?

IAC, I don't see how we can have a meaning discussion, or communicate clearly, unless we can agree on terms and definitions.

I think one could say that indexed contents, e.g. song lyrics or words from a book - is low quality and unstructured metadata and there is also high quality structured metadata.
 would this work for you?


a quote from David Weinberger:

"Traditionally, metadata has been used to help people find data. The metadata on a card in a library catalog is there to help patrons locate books on shelves. Metadata could do little more because metadata was a reduction of information: A 600-page book is boiled down to a few facts that fit on a 3x5 card. 

But in the digital world, there's little reason to boil things down. Metadata can be expansionist. It can include the entire text of the book. It can include the text of a biography of the author of the book. It can include a map of the places the author of the biography of the author once visited. Why not? Suppose someone wants to find the book written by the subject of the biography written by that guy who used to live in Slough?"

another quote:

"If I'm looking for an article about hydrocarbons written by Barbara Rodriguez, then the article's topic ("hydrocarbons") and author's name ("Rodriguez, Barbara") are metadata, and the content is the data. But, I could just as well be trying to remember the name of the author who wrote an article that included the phrase "Hydrocarbons are the burros of the the cosmos" sometime in the 1960s, in which case the content and date are metadata and the author's name is the data. What's data and what's metadata depends on the person doing the asking."


In a connected world all information is interrelated, hence everything is metadata.

People keep pretending they can make things deeply hierarchical, categorizable, and sequential when they can’t. Everything is deeply intertwingled.” So said Ted Nelson, the eccentric visionary who coined the term hypertext in the mid-1960s.

[May]

Ok, so here is another example of how data / metadata change their roles.

Suppose I have a list of to do items with due dates.

I could ask: "What **tasks** do I have?" and then look at my to do items. In this case tasks are data and their (due) dates are metadata (data about my tasks).

However I might just as well be asking a different question, e.g. "What is due **tomorrow**?" and then look at the list of all of my to do items which are due tomorrow. In this case a due date (tomorrow) is data and my to do items are metadata (i.e. data about the date, or in other words what needs to be done until tomorrow). This is how calendar works.

As you can see I can organize information for different purpose and in different ways, e.g. I can organize tasks by projects/contexts. Or I can add tasks to a calendar.

In a digital world I can do everything at the same time, of course, i.e. I can input projects, contexts, dates, tasks and then filter everything in any way I want. There is no single correct hierarchical way to organize and look at any information.

This also applies to everything else, e.g. books, articles, song lyrics and so on.

[JMichael]

@May: I've already stated several times that I disagree with your definition:

In a connected world all information is interrelated, hence everything is metadata

Sorry, but until/if we agree and the definition of metadata, I don't have any more to say on this subject.

[May]

That's fine. I'm actually trying to explain things (from point of view) instead of asking anything at this point.
After providing many examples, articles and book quotes - I don't know what more could be said without repeating it over.

I mean all you do is just disagree without providing anything other than a definition of metadata (which I neither contradict nor disagree with). Hence, I don't think we even disagree, it's more like you're just not seeing my point.