Tags are indeed useful. That notwithstanding, they are not a hierarchical structure. They are...tags! You're not being organized using tags - you're tagging. That's OK if your data search needs are significantly random and your frequency of access is small. Consider this. You use evernote to keep records of product builds. You have software products and hardware products. Ignoring the former, you have seven families of hardware products. Any family has 2-4 SKU's, and each SKU has 30-200 components, assembly instructions and reams of test data. How are you going to organize efficiently with tags? Tags are very useful for those component that span SKUs, but are you really going to tag each test report as "Product" and "Hardware" and "Family 4" and "SKU 3" and "FadeMarginReport27"? Let's be real! Then lets say you want to find those reports whose outlier case was +32dBm. This is a real world use for evernote and it simply can't be properly done with tags! So for those who say 'antiquated' your agenda (or simple use case) is showing. As you can see, I have only great respect for the inclusion of tags. And I believe that it's so obvious that a hierarchical structure is better, that the only conclusion left is the data structure decision is made and there is no turning back.