79 replies to this topic

[May]

Thanks again for this great info Grumpy Monkey..I have converted to your method for the past week and am getting comfortable with all the search capabilities and love it...had 65 notebooks and 42 tags previous....now three notebooks and search..search is a problem now though.. I am on a committee that reviews bills in state legislature...some are HB others SB... I have saved YYMM DD SB or HB...how can I search for HB and SB to review both types?
Thanks in advance

You can use "ANY:" search operator, i.e. search for "any: hb sb"

You can keep encoding hierarchies into keyword names (as suggested by JM and GM) and using search with wildcard to navigate parent categories but this approach has its limitations because titles would get too long to be conveniently readable and managable eventually.

Both approaches (to navigate hierarchies) have their pros and cons, i.e. in one case the keywords get too long in another case the search string might get very long.
So use either approach whenever appropriate depending on the use case.

[GrumpyMonkey]

no hierarchy, no trouble

[May]

No tags, no problems, right? But now we have keywords which are harder to manage... Seriously though... the problem itself was not in the hierarchy, not to mention the hierarchy is still there in any case, regardles of what approach you use.

[GrumpyMonkey]

no hierarchy. that's kind of the point. 120324 senate bill. it's neither above nor below any other note. the problem was with the keywords being too short and/or the search vocabulary. as you said, "any" would also achieve the desired results.

[May]

"Bill" is a parent of "senate" and etc., there's hierarchy encoded in the keyword...

[GrumpyMonkey]

"Bill" is a parent of "senate" and etc., there's hierarchy encoded in the keyword...

it's a word. the hierarchy is in your mind may. let go of your organizational impulses

[May]

lol

GM,

The hierarchy is in your mind when you search for "any: hb sb". The hierarchy is always there, you either externalize it or not, in a case with "senate bill" and etc. it is actually externalized because you just search for "bill" instead of having to remember all your search keywords for all kinds of bills separately.

You're not avoiding organization in any case, you're just making it less obvious. I mean you still need to add "senate bill" keyword instead of a tag and so on...

[GrumpyMonkey]

i don't encode hierarchies. i aim for about three keywords that don't necessarily have any relationship at all. and, the titles don't get longer and longer, as you suggest. three.

it is organization, but less than tags (in my opinion). hence, my invitation: let go
of your hierarchies and join the organizational hippies. the system has weak points, but longer and longer titles is not one of them.

[May]

it is organization, but less than tags (in my opinion)

I think it's just silly to say that there is less organization if you replace tags with keywords. I mean come on, seriously you're looking for a difference where there's none. There are basically 2 main ways to organize information in Evernote, i.e. linking and grouping (that's how I define it personally) everything else are just variations of the same thing. Even those 2 main methods lead to the same outcome anyway, albeit by a different road. But Tags and keywords are just variations of exactly the same thing.

There is no difference. You're not adding any less data...
You haven't eliminated any concept...

Using one instead of another in itself doesn't change the amount of organization .


You can avoid hierachies in both cases, whether you use keywords or tags, the only problem is that it's not going to be helpful when you actually need/want to use them, like in the case which was just described with different bills.

hence, my invitation: let go
of your hierarchies and join the organizational hippies.

Sounds good but the problem is you're not letting go of anything in any case, internally or externally..

When you think deeply about the topic instead of just skimming it, e.g. "he stays organized without organizing", you realize that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I don't want to tinker under the guise of ‘reducing’ or ‘simplifying’.

If you don't need tags that's one thing, if you're replacing them with keywords in titles that's another... There is no true minimalism in that.

If you don't need hierarchies that's, again, one thing, but if you do need them and then also manage them in some convoluted way under the guise of "simplifying" and "minimalism" - that's another case.
I'm not saying that you do, it's just an example, i.e. you can overcomplexify things under the guise of "simplifying"!

As I've said in another thread, without reflection about desired outcomes, any organization will be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, regardless of whether you use tags, keywords or random codes or note links...

Instead of jumping from one fad bandwagon to another you can just focus on the desired outcome and achieve it with the least amount of effort using the tools you have...

I personally know exactly what I want from my system and I prefer to design it in a way which lets me organize and find stuff later on with the least amount of effort (mental or other) and without any compromises, that's all.



another thread: http://discussion.ev...post__p__130241

Keep things simple, but not too simple, you want your porridge just right.



Please don’t take this the wrong way. I love simplicity. I think we can gain a of insight and inspiration by analyzing GM system. But I also do think there are some things which only look simple and sound intriguing initially but  do not actually make anything simpler in practice. 

Or in other words

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

Albert Einstein.

[GrumpyMonkey]

hi may. what an enthusiastic rejoinder you have given us! thank you it seems very much in the spirit of sir raleigh's poem, the lie (http://www.luminariu...nlit/thelie.htm).

1. complexity under the guise of simplicity?
i don't see how it could be both "overcomplexified" and overly simplistic at the same time, as you charge. perhaps you believe (as i do) that it is easy to learn, but difficult to master. the basics are simple: "date + a few keywords". that is it. but, there are exceptions, though, certain words i make sure to put into certain notes, and so forth, and that is why i have an entire web page to explain a simple sentence. i would say that is how i modified it to fit my circumstances. i imagine most people will insert their own idiosyncracies. i don't consider that "complex" myself.

2. not "true" minimalism?
there is a little bit of effort involved, of course, and it is a little hyperbolic to say organization without organizing in the sense of doing absolutely nothing at all. i suppose you could go a step further and simply put the date in the title of the note. or, you could go to a true extreme and refuse to title anything, and just use the created date to filter your search results. but, i think both of these methods are a little bit too minimalistic, even for me. so, yes, i agree that there is some effort. but, i don't know how a date and a few keywords (i prefer about three) can seem like an overly simple, or "overcomplexified" system.

3. doesn't work in practice?
it is quite easy to do (i think) and easy to use in practice. i have been using the system for about a decade (starting with paper and now moving into evernote) without a problem, so i am 100% that it works (at least for me and the people inspired to try it by the organizational guru who first developed the approach). if you find you need hierarchies and categories to organize things, then that is fine. maybe this isn't for you.

4. notebooks and tags the same?
i have, of course, tried systems with notebooks and tags. both of these features are incredibly useful, and i am especially impressed by evernote's decision to build their application around tags. everyone getting started with evernote ought to give both tools a try. fortunately, the system i am suggesting (a date and keywords) is 100% compatible with them, and when i decided to get rid of first notebooks, and then later tags, it was a smooth transition. perhaps may, if you give it a try, you might also end up sloughing off notebooks and tags

5. a rose by any other name?
there is certainly some overlap between the concept of tags and the one of keywords in a title, they seem quite different to me, and actually neither of them produces a hierarchy when used, and you don't need one to organize information. use any keyword you like, and don't worry about whether it is exactly the same as others you have used in the past (this would be one difference). for some things that regularly occur, like my daily journal, i am more consistent, and this is part of the customization (this would be one similarity). but, we are only talking about six or so words. i had many dozens of more notebooks and tags in my heyday. if there is anything to take away from what i am saying, it is that you do not need hierarchies and categories to stay organized.

[May]

hi may. what an enthusiastic rejoinder you have given us! thank you

lol

GM,

I see your point, i.e. just organize everything by date and how often it is used... Except you do a lot more than that yourself...

Here is a description of the system:

"The gist of the Noguchi scheme is this: every single incoming document, no matter what it is, is placed in a large envelope, which is then placed on its edge on a shelf, so that all the envelopes line up in a horizontal row like books. New envelopes are inserted on the left side of the row, and any envelope that's taken out is put back on the left. After a while, those envelopes that contain the most recent and most often accessed documents will end up on the left side of the row, while the oldest and least used documents will be on the right. In theory, this makes documents easier to access, since they are automatically prioritized by frequency of use."

Why add another concepts like keywords and random codes and note links and etc. at all then?

Well, maybe this is why - a comment about this system:

"I have a lot of experience with the Noguchi method in the form of common desk piles and I can tell you that while it is efficient on the front end, it is very lacking in the retrieval of information. In my opinion, it is not a filing system. However, I could see it being workable if the number of documents in it is kept to a dozen or less and it is backed up by a real filing system"

Kind of makes sense... So your "real filing system" is basically the same as probably a lot of Evernote users, except you type the dates manually and use keywords which are also harder to add and manage instead of tags.

My point was really to demonstrate that we all end up doing the same thing, albeit in different ways. Maybe I failed? Does this make sense?
We all still organize things and also we do it the same technically (pretty much). There is no free lunch.

perhaps may, if you give it a try, you might also end up sloughing off notebooks and tags

I'm not going to give up tags because:

Keywords take more effort to type

That's pretty much it! Why would I want to spend additional effort for no real reason?

there is certainly some overlap between the concept of tags and the one of keywords in a title, they seem quite different to me

trust me, they're the same thing. Yes there's difference but it's only technical and not conceptual. You can treat and use them in exactly the same way. Tags are just easier to use and keywords have no advantage so sticking to keywords only is absolutely pointless. (I use both keywords and tags as I mentioned in previous post in this thread)

you can't really go wrong with tags, they're the most efficient way to organize notes in Evernote (considering its current design) and yes, I've looked at all of the imaginably possible ways to organize notes in Evernote.
Tags have no real disadvantages, they're just keywords and a way to group notes.

Your manual approach basically just adds complexity because keywords are harder to manage compared to tags and provide no benefits in return for additional effort... That's not true simplicity nor true minimalism. That's pretty much the only criticism from me about your system.

Tags are actually more minimalistic since you re-use each tag for multiple notes instead of re-typing the same keyword manually. In other words you actually input LESS data if you use tags. Tags are much tidier if that matters to you. But it certainly doesn't matter to me personally! Lol

Don't get me wrong though, I like your approach in general, i.e. to organize as little as possible and also rely on search and so on, I've mentioned it in my previous posts in this thread.

[GrumpyMonkey]

hi may. i take it that you don't have any titles then.otherwise, aren't you doing more work by adding tags?

[May]

No, tags are different than titles (titles are always unique) and I don't manually re-type the same thing over and over (tags are the same and are reused for multiple notes). That's kind of the whole point of tags, i.e. they group notes while titles and their contents make them unique.

I don't type any more than 2-3 letters to process/organize about at least half of my notes.

More work compared to what?

You could say that I'm doing more work if you were not using keywords yourself. The thing is - you do. The difference is you re-type them manually while I don't... If you weren't using keywords then I'd have no criticism for your system at all.

Besides that, yep, in fact I actually don't write titles manually a lot (if not most) of the time either, title is generated automatically most of the time because I usually don't create notes in Evernote built in editor from scratch.


And If the title has the same word or phrase as tag then I don't add the tag or vice versa, there's no redundancy.

[nova47]

hi may. what an enthusiastic rejoinder you have given us! thank you it seems very much in the spirit of sir raleigh's poem, the lie.

Undoubtedly the most complex and cerebral post this forum has ever seen !! Makes Walter's scribble look like drivel. Thesis anyone?

No hijack intended...carry on

[May]

I looked into the deepest depth of organization in its essence and what was seen cannot be unseen! lol

[rmw1]

May and GM great insight in both posts...proves the point that Evernote can fit any "system" or personal organizational desires...FWIW after using the notebook and tag tool for over a year I found GM's fewer notebook and titles to be liberating...once I grasp all the search capabilities I think I will be even better off... in addition I was explaining the titling and index idea to my wife who cannot stand EN or why I love it....as I explained the index card idea she actually said...that makes sense I may have to start using Evernote GM the evangelist strikes again!!

[nova47]

I looked into the deepest depth of organization in its essence and what was seen cannot be unseen! lol

You had me at "if a tree falls in the forest"

[May]

May and GM great insight in both posts...proves the point that Evernote can fit any "system" or personal organizational desires...FWIW after using the notebook and tag tool for over a year I found GM's fewer notebook and titles to be liberating...once I grasp all the search capabilities I think I will be even better off... in addition I was explaining the titling and index idea to my wife who cannot stand EN or why I love it....as I explained the index card idea she actually said...that makes sense I may have to start using Evernote GM the evangelist strikes again!!

I agree, the index note and links to other notes is probably the most intuitive way to organize notes but it's also the most overhyped imho. It takes too much work to be really viable when you consider the current Evernote design.

As far as I can see, GM main organizational methodology has really nothing to do with organizing notes via linking. They're just an addition in some (infrequent?) cases

it makes sense to use mixed approaches only as long as you use at least one of the approaches consistently and another one as an addition only. Otherwise you're going to run into problems because grouping (with keywords/random codes/tags) and linking are 2 different ways to organize and navigate things. And if you don't use your preferred organizational method consistently then you lose its benefits.

[JMichael]

And If the title has the same word or phrase as tag then I don't add the tag or vice versa, there's no redundancy.

May, a technical point here.
IMO, if you use Tags, you should always apply the appropriate Tag regardless of whether or not it is also in the Title.
Otherwise a Search on "tag:<tagname>" will NOT return all of the Notes it should.
Conversely, a Search on only "intitle:<tagname>" will NOT return all of the Notes it should.

Since Evernote does NOT support Boolean search, you can't search for "tag:<tagname> OR intitle:<tagname>"

[jefito]

Since Evernote does NOT support Boolean search, you can't search for "tag:<tagname> OR intitle:<tagname>"

This is NOT TRUE. Evernote does support boolean searches, just not mixed and/or searches, and not using 'and' or 'or' operators. Evernote will categorically support: "any: tag:<tagname> intitle:<tagname>", which does exactly what you said it cannot do.