With tag hierarchies, shouldn't tagging a note with a "child" tag automatically tag that note with all relevant "parent" tags?

[arose10 47]

For example, let's say I have "Tag A".  "Tag A" has the child tag "Tag B".  "Tag B", in turn, has the child tag "Tag C".

It seems logical to me that tagging any note with "Tag B" should automatically apply "Tag A", as well.  Similarly, tagging any note with "Tag C" should automatically apply both "Tag A" and "Tag B", as well.

However, unless I'm mistaken, this doesn't seem to be the way Evernote works.  I'm finding that, say, tagging a note with "Tag C" only tags it with "Tag C".  This leaves me wondering what the point of tag hierarchies within Evernote is, besides superficial organization?

[DTLow 5,744]

I’ve moved this discussion to the feature request forum 

Its not currently an option.

[jefito 5,598]

Quote

With tag hierarchies, shouldn't tagging a note with a "child" tag automatically tag that note with all relevant "parent" tags?

No, that's not required behavior, nor is it desirable for all users. I don't use tags to express conceptual (or "superficial") hierarchy so much as just a way to organize my tags. Tags have no semantic content, nor any connection with other tags.

The Windows client has the ability to filter tags and their subtags, though I don't find its implementation particularly useful (it's done by adding all of the subtags to the filter, and turning it into an any: search). It would be better if you could express that in the search language, but you cannot.

[arose10 47]

1 hour ago, jefito said:

No, that's not required behavior, nor is it desirable for all users. I don't use tags to express conceptual (or "superficial") hierarchy so much as just a way to organize my tags. Tags have no semantic content, nor any connection with other tags.

The Windows client has the ability to filter tags and their subtags, though I don't find its implementation particularly useful (it's done by adding all of the subtags to the filter, and turning it into an any: search). It would be better if you could express that in the search language, but you cannot.

Interesting.  Can you give an example of how this would work in the Windows client?  I don't entirely follow.  Also, does similar functionality exist in the Mac client?

[DTLow 5,744]

1 hour ago, arose10 said:

Also, does similar functionality exist in the Mac client?

No, it’s not a Mac feature (yet).  

Evernote/Mac has a scripting layer and it’s possible to implement these tag features; assigning parent tags and searching child tags

[jefito 5,598]

12 hours ago, arose10 said:

Interesting.  Can you give an example of how this would work in the Windows client?  I don't entirely follow.  Also, does similar functionality exist in the Mac client?

There's a setting in the Windows client: Tools / Options / Navigation / "Automatically select child tags"; the hover text says "Check this option if you want to child tags to be automatically selected  when you select a parent tag in the left panel or the Tag Picker. This allows you to display notes associated with child tags when the parent tag is selected". You have tag A with children B and C. If you have this setting enabled, and you pick A in the tag list, then notes with either A, B, or C are shown in your filter. There are two drawbacks:

1. This is a global setting for all searches; there's no way to use this facility in a saved search or a search you just type in unless it's enabled, nor any way to disable it in a search if it's enabled. 
2. This turns your search into an any: search ("any: tag:A tag:B tag:C", plus any other terms in your search), it matches any tag added due to the rule, or any other terms you've added to the search. This is not a sneaky way of implementing a mixed AND/OR search (as you can by using wildcards)

I'm guessing that some folks use this, but I don't. It's awkward, and a bit of a hack.

Edit: not being harsh here, btw: it is a clever use of the search language as it is, and changing the search language is evidently a big task, so resorting to hackery seems fair.

Oh, and one more reason why tags probably shouldn't express classification: unique tags can exist only in one place in the tag hierarchy, but you might legitimately want the same tag in separate classification schemes without needing to make up a new word for whatever concept it represents. Tag hierarchies can mimic nested folder structures), but it's not 1-1.