Tag tree: Tablet vs. Phone

[actant 22]

EN team should enhance the effor of improving the tag tree navigation experience.

 

Currently, the Android phone version seems to be the only viable way of navigating through sophisticated nested tags.

 

On the android tablet, you can go through the tag tree, but once you open a note and then close it, you lose the location where you left.

It's very frustrating and make the Android tablet version as useless as the iPad version with regard to tag tree.

 

Hope the EN team can allow the android user to switch between tablet UI and phone UI.

 

[megsaint 441]

 

Please think about the patent classification system, which is a highly sophisticated hierachy.

The patent examiners of Patent and Trademark Office are a group of most professional information retrievers in this world.

Althought highly powerful searching tools are available nowadays, the classification hierachy is still the most trustible tool for them to nagivate the huge database of patent documents.

 

 

Or they are still using a system that predates current sophisticated searching and retrieval technology and don't have the interest in taking the time to move to something else. Inertia is a powerful force. 

 

I think the point you may be missing is that there is no one best way to organize information. You like tag trees. The very thought makes me queasy. I picked the tool that best suits my organizational needs.

[ScottLougheed 1,316]

 

I have 17,133 notes as of this writing. I'm not sure where you're pulling this 20 notes per tag thing from. And, for the life of me, I can't imagine any situation in which I'd need 1000 tags. 

In my personal exprience, when a tag holds >50 notes, the efficiency of finding the note on moble phone goes down vertically.

Yes, you can put 100 or 200 notes in a single tag.

It's not a problem of "right" or "wrong", but a problem of efficiency.

 

Somebody refered to filtering by multiple tags above.

The more efficient way is to set up a tag to repalce those operation of filtering-by-multiple.

 

The tag is designed to help building an organized virtual "memory", and should not degrade into a simple keyword system.

Hierarchy or tree plays the cetral role in getting information "organized" or "structured".

 

For my part in this discussion about (and rejection of) hierarchy, see my posts in and around here:

http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/40701-evernote-sub-folders/?p=262393

[cwb 225]

I feel the need to say you're right and yet less so in practice, Jeff and Scott.

Technically taken as wrote, what you say it true.  To scientifically categorize by tags in a taxomomical sense, they need to be very granular.

However in a practical sense, most of us don't live in that world and don't take our tags to that scientific classification degree.  You create the tags sufficient to deal with the stuff you're dealing with and no more.  If that gets unruly, you re-factor as needed.

 

And truth be told, I don't think either system quite gets it done, and I use both.  If I post more on more single compound tag structures, it's because if I had to live with only one, it couldn't be single word adhoc tags, be they visually nested in the tag tree or all in a linear row.  Tried and failed.

 

I do have a whole reference section of tags that unfolds into grouped by kind single tags.  Still nested, but just to reign in visual chaos.

The whole upper branch of tags is the more day to day working group with reduced longer concatenated or compound single tags.  So that when recalled in the linear search field, they're still grouped by kind, and have a structure.

 

But you're right in that it often doesn't make sense to be rigid on creating single tags for every permation of categorization (the color, shape, size example).  But a simple hybrid is often a better faster approach than either.  That single compound tag, with an additional tag or two.

 

There are at least two pricinpals from other areas of study that come to play practically.

 

1.  The Paradox of choice.  We find that we don't do well in decision making when presented by too much choice.  You could get lost in a Ted talk tour of that subject.  But I have found that choosing a set of individual tags to describe a note often eats up way more cycles than it aught to.  And there's a degree to which you struggle to remember how you did it last time (vs. Evernote telling me how I did it last time).  There's an unsatisfactory uncertainty that you got it right.  Both at the time of tagging and much later at the time of searching, when you're uncertain that you've found everything on the subject that you've stored.  I know I get more satisfaction when I start typing one of my compound tags and see it autocomplete, that with it or perhaps the additional of another qualifying tag that I feel more secure in the categorization, and can move on, having "nailed in one".

 

2. David Covey when speaking in the realm of GTD stresses a concept - That for the brain to let go of trying to juggle all the bits of info, requires filing it in a trusted system.  If you have any uncertainty that you're going to be successful in recalling the stored info, the brain won't let it go.  Ultimately you don't have the mental space for creative thought until you've been successful in dumping that data out into a trusted system.

• I never had that confirming sense of trust when I was relying on granular adhoc single word tags, rather than compound tags with a taxonomical structure.
• I did get mixed results on search depending on how I recalled all the various ways I'd grouped/tagged things over time.
• I spent more time, then than now, winnowing tag sprawl, having to combine singular and plural forms, reduce similar items (house, home, work, business, employment), etc.

[cwb 225]

For my part in this discussion about (and rejection of) hierarchy, see my posts in and around here:

http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/40701-evernote-sub-folders/?p=262393

Hmm, what I took away from your post there was a rejection of folder hierarchy. It didn't directly argue against a tag hierarchy.

Key principal is that data needs the freedom to live in more than one box, because the same info can serve different uses.

There's nothing to say that a note can'e be tagged with both:

"STS>Actor-Network Theory>Animal Studies" and "Documents>Academics>Manuscripts>Drafts>"

But I would wager, you'll do a much better job in less time tagging that with those two tags, than stopping to recall all the needed individual tags.

STS, Actor-Network, Theory, Animal Studies, Documents, Academics, Manuscripts, Drafts.

I'm going to be prone to forgetting that this is "Theory" and not "Research", and that it's a Document, AND a "Manuscript".

And I'm going to have little confidence that I found the complete reference set much down the line. But I'm just a data point.

 

A great thing though is that Evernote is just as happy showing me a list of existing tags containing "Manuscript" if that's what's typed in the search field.

So Documents>Academics>Manuscripts>Drafts> as a tag, is just as findable as "Manuscript"

So I can type "Manu" and click from the presented list, instead of typing out the individual tags with thinking and remembering inbetween each.

[cwb 225]

I don't see any inherent efficiency in using a single tag versus the multiple tag system that I use. In fact, I see a marked decrease in efficiency, particularly as you scale up.

I've experienced just the opposite in practice. I don't think you can force either method rigidly to it's extremes. Both have use, but compound single tags, I find have more use. Faster typing, faster recall, more certainty, better "feel good" on the data capture, and it gives more for Evernote to work with, prompting you through refining the search. Offloading my compute cycles to Evernote.

[ScottLougheed 1,316]

 

For my part in this discussion about (and rejection of) hierarchy, see my posts in and around here:

http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/40701-evernote-sub-folders/?p=262393

Hmm, what I took away from your post there was a rejection of folder hierarchy. It didn't directly argue against a tag hierarchy.

Key principal is that data needs the freedom to live in more than one box, because the same info can serve different uses.

There's nothing to say that a note can'e be tagged with both:

"STS>Actor-Network Theory>Animal Studies" and "Documents>Academics>Manuscripts>Drafts>"

But I would wager, you'll do a much better job in less time tagging that with those two tags, than stopping to recall all the needed individual tags.

STS, Actor-Network, Theory, Animal Studies, Documents, Academics, Manuscripts, Drafts.

I'm going to be prone to forgetting that this is "Theory" and not "Research", and that it's a Document, AND a "Manuscript".

And I'm going to have little confidence that I found the complete reference set much down the line. But I'm just a data point.

 

A great thing though is that Evernote is just as happy showing me a list of existing tags containing "Manuscript" if that's what's typed in the search field.

So Documents>Academics>Manuscripts>Drafts> as a tag, is just as findable as "Manuscript"

So I can type "Man" and click from the presented list, instead of typing out the individual tags with thinking and remembering inbetween each.

 

I probably went a bit nuts for the purposes of the example. In reality reading notes for that paper are tagged:

STS, ANT, animal studies

[jefito 5,589]

I feel the need to say you're right and yet less so in practice, Jeff and Scott.

Technically taken as wrote, what you say it true.  To scientifically categorize by tags in a taxomomical sense, they need to be very granular.

However in a practical sense, most of us don't live in that world and don't take our tags to that scientific classification degree.  You create the tags sufficient to deal with the stuff you're dealing with and no more.  If that gets unruly, you re-factor as needed.

My example was for illustration, mainly to try to get a grip on what actant is trying to say, and why tags in combinations give more power that single tags. In real life, I only do as much tagging as I need to be able to use my notes. It's a pragmatic approach, as far as I'm concerned, not a rigidly defined system. In general, I try not to overdue/overthink the organizational stuff in Evernote.

[megsaint 441]

 In general, I try not to overdue/overthink the organizational stuff in Evernote.

 

 

Can we get posters made of of this statement? Perhaps make it a sticky note at the top of the forum? 

[cwb 225]

Now now, lets not circle the wagons and get insular.

It's a big enough tent to cover both camps.

And all the Taylor Johnson personality types.

 

There's enough posts this week of tug of wars, where you can step back and say, whichever way is right for you, Evernote already can do that, or at least most of it.

 

neckbearders are people too...

moreover, though they be so, they're OUR neckbearders ;-)

[actant 22]

What I would do is generate separate tags for each of the attributes I named above: "square", "circle", "triangle", "red", "green", "blue", "large", "medium", and "small". So that's 9 tags. And I can apply them in combination with the others: a small red square would be tagged as: "small", "red", and "square". And for organizational purposes, let's add a some container tags, so that we have a small hierarchy:

"Color" tag contains "red", "green", "blue"

"Shape" tag contains "square", "circle", "triangle"

"Size" tag contains "large", "medium", "small"

So twelve tags in total. Note that I probably wouldn't use "Color", "Shape", or "Size" to actually label any shapes, they're just for organizing the actual instances.

Now if I understand you correctly, you want to replace multiple tags with single tags? To do that, you need a tag for each combination of my three tags. For example, my combination of "small", "red", and "square" would require a single "SmallRedSquare". But wait, that means that you would need 27 tags to capture what I can capture in 12 tags. More efficient? OK, so now we want to add a the color purple to our classification scheme. In my method, I add a single new tag, "purple" to my "Color" container tag. In the other method, you would need to add 9 new tags. Again, which is the more efficient?

If I need to access those 27 combinations frequently, I would rather build 27 tags for them.

Otherwise, I would use the multifilering feature.

 

 The tag is designed to help building an organized virtual "memory", and should not degrade into a simple keyword system.

Hierarchy or tree plays the cetral role in getting information "organized" or "structured".

I don't know what you're saying here; it's theoretical, and not at all concrete. Example, please?

Please think about the patent classification system, which is a highly sophisticated hierachy.

The patent examiners of Patent and Trademark Office are a group of most professional information retrievers in this world.

Althought highly powerful searching tools are available nowadays, the classification hierachy is still the most trustible tool for them to nagivate the huge database of patent documents.

 

As cwb refered to, the hierachy avoids the uncertainty in accessing information.

[jefito 5,589]

I don't think that you've quite grasped the notion of searching in Evernote, or multi-tagging either.
 

 

I have 17,133 notes as of this writing. I'm not sure where you're pulling this 20 notes per tag thing from. And, for the life of me, I can't imagine any situation in which I'd need 1000 tags.

In my personal exprience, when a tag holds >50 notes, the efficiency of finding the note on moble phone goes down vertically.
Yes, you can put 100 or 200 notes in a single tag.
It's not a problem of "right" or "wrong", but a problem of efficiency.

 

First, your use case and experience aren't *my* use case and experience (or anyone else's, including yours, for that matter). You are not the expert on my Evernote usage, and you have no idea what's efficient for me.

So one thing: you don't need tags to do searching in Evernote, period. Text search can work pretty well, and a number of people use schemes that take advantage of formatted text contained in their notes to make some types of searching easier. Simply typing a search can be a whole lot more "efficient" than trying to pick a number of tags in a tag tree.
 

Somebody refered to filtering by multiple tags above.
The more efficient way is to set up a tag to repalce those operation of filtering-by-multiple.

If you're saying that it's more efficient to replace combinations of tags with equivalent single tags, well then, no, not really. Consider a parallel example: suppose I wanted to categorize a notes that represent different geometric shapes, say, squares, circles, and triangles. And they have different sizes (small, medium, and large) and colors (red, green, and blue). So how do you do this using tags?

What I would do is generate separate tags for each of the attributes I named above: "square", "circle", "triangle", "red", "green", "blue", "large", "medium", and "small". So that's 9 tags. And I can apply them in combination with the others: a small red square would be tagged as: "small", "red", and "square". And for organizational purposes, let's add a some container tags, so that we have a small hierarchy:
"Color" tag contains "red", "green", "blue"
"Shape" tag contains "square", "circle", "triangle"
"Size" tag contains "large", "medium", "small"

So twelve tags in total. Note that I probably wouldn't use "Color", "Shape", or "Size" to actually label any shapes, they're just for organizing the actual instances.

Now if I understand you correctly, you want to replace multiple tags with single tags? To do that, you need a tag for each combination of my three tags. For example, my combination of "small", "red", and "square" would require a single "SmallRedSquare". But wait, that means that you would need 27 tags to capture what I can capture in 12 tags. More efficient? OK, so now we want to add a the color purple to our classification scheme. In my method, I add a single new tag, "purple" to my "Color" container tag. In the other method, you would need to add 9 new tags. Again, which is the more efficient?

And to stretch the point, those categories aren't necessarily limited to application to shapes. I can use the color tags in other contexts. The same for the size tags.

OK, so then we actually need to apply our tagging schemes. I want to find all of the large blue squares. On the Android tablet, I can locate to my "Size" tags, and pick "large". Hey, the tag list just adjusted to my choice, so that I only need to consider notes that have the tag "large". Locate to my "Shapes" tags and pick "square". Even more filtering occurs, in the note list and the tag tree. Maybe I can see the note that I'm looking for now and I can just go to it. Or maybe I need to go and pick "blue". Pretty simple, but note that you cannot do this using the current Android phone UI, as far as I can tell.

OK, in the combined-tag system, I get a long list, or maybe you've added some hierarchy to it, though I don't really know what that would be.

I don't see any inherent efficiency in using a single tag versus the multiple tag system that I use. In fact, I see a marked decrease in efficiency, particularly as you scale up.
 

The tag is designed to help building an organized virtual "memory", and should not degrade into a simple keyword system.
Hierarchy or tree plays the cetral role in getting information "organized" or "structured".

I don't know what you're saying here; it's theoretical, and not at all concrete. Example, please?

[jefito 5,589]

 

What I would do is generate separate tags for each of the attributes I named above: "square", "circle", "triangle", "red", "green", "blue", "large", "medium", and "small". So that's 9 tags. And I can apply them in combination with the others: a small red square would be tagged as: "small", "red", and "square". And for organizational purposes, let's add a some container tags, so that we have a small hierarchy:

"Color" tag contains "red", "green", "blue"

"Shape" tag contains "square", "circle", "triangle"

"Size" tag contains "large", "medium", "small"

So twelve tags in total. Note that I probably wouldn't use "Color", "Shape", or "Size" to actually label any shapes, they're just for organizing the actual instances.

Now if I understand you correctly, you want to replace multiple tags with single tags? To do that, you need a tag for each combination of my three tags. For example, my combination of "small", "red", and "square" would require a single "SmallRedSquare". But wait, that means that you would need 27 tags to capture what I can capture in 12 tags. More efficient? OK, so now we want to add a the color purple to our classification scheme. In my method, I add a single new tag, "purple" to my "Color" container tag. In the other method, you would need to add 9 new tags. Again, which is the more efficient?

If I need to access those 27 combinations frequently, I would rather build 27 tags for them.

Otherwise, I would use the multifilering feature.

 

OK, now add a few more colors tags, and count up the number of combinations you'd need. I think that I would rather avoid a system that scales dreadfully, is probably error-prone, and ultimately turns into recursive nightmare where you then need to organize your tags as much as much as you need to need to organize your notes. But different strokes, I guess...

 

 

 

The tag is designed to help building an organized virtual "memory", and should not degrade into a simple keyword system.

Hierarchy or tree plays the cetral role in getting information "organized" or "structured".

I don't know what you're saying here; it's theoretical, and not at all concrete. Example, please?

 

Please think about the patent classification system, which is a highly sophisticated hierachy.

The patent examiners of Patent and Trademark Office are a group of most professional information retrievers in this world.

 

OK.

 

Althought highly powerful searching tools are available nowadays, the classification hierachy is still the most trustible tool for them to nagivate the huge database of patent documents.

Reference for this claim, please? How about a link to a reference of the PTO's storage and query system. Is there no room for associative search in the PTO? How do they find related technologies?

 

Is this anything to do with the patent system being such a mess currently?

 

As cwb refered to, the hierachy avoids the uncertainty in accessing information.

I really don't understand that, but whatever. If you really, really, need to use a strict hierarchy, Evernote is not the tool for you, at least at this point in time. Will they ever change that? I don't know, but if my workflow depended it, I wouldn't use Evernote. As I've said all along (and I don't understand why you keep picking away at this as if I don't use or understand, or even like -- where appropriate -- hierarchical organization), Evernote fits my various use cases, and that's why I continue to use it every day.

[cwb 225]

OK, now add a few more colors tags, and count up the number of combinations you'd need. I think that I would rather avoid a system that scales dreadfully, is probably error-prone, and ultimately turns into recursive nightmare where you then need to organize your tags as much as much as you need to need to organize your notes.

-1 for hyperbole.

There's no recursiveness in evidence.

I imagine a practical person may not create tags for notes not yet in evidence. Both camps will no doubt only add as much framework as sufficient for the immediate or anticipated near-term requirements.

 

Is there no room for associative search in the PTO? How do they find related technologies?

 

Is this anything to do with the patent system being such a mess currently?

http://www.intellogist.com/wiki/US_Patent_Classification_System#Searching_Using_US_Classification

As with Evernote there are multiple ways to search something. Search is not the same as a classification system.

And classification system is not the same thing as a tag or a keyword, by default.

I think what he's getting at (as to a lessor degree me, or perhaps on a separate parallel track) is one can elect to organize simple tags/keywords into a classification system. It's both/and, not either or (unless your tags have no classification system).

Evernote Elegantly supports the use case. Moreover it supports it in at least two ways.

The least effectively, I argue, by visually nesting them in the tag tree.

But more effectively by putting the structure in the tag name itself.

But your patent system query, no, I think it's fairly well established that the patent system is in a mess because of what's approved not how it's classified. Garbage in Garbage out, even if it's easily findable garbage.

They can query/find (per the article) patents back to 1790, which is a bolder claim than I'd make about my Evernote collection (with certainty).

But an absolute no, when I was using single keyword tags rather than a hybrid classification system in my tags.

 

If you really, really, need to use a strict hierarchy, Evernote is not the tool for you, at least at this point in time.

NO! 100% wrong, and counter evangelist.

Or even just not reading/understanding posts here and elsewhere.

Evernote has always supported (not enforced) the desire for a strict hierarchy.

It works fine. It scales past my hundreds of tags with no more burden than in the past.

Can we stop needlessly campifying, and sending users away from the platform saying it doesn't fit?

If one cannot/will not understand the end users use case, or take to time to grok how Evernote may already encompass that use case, not only is there no value in a reply, to do so in error is harmful to the ecosystem/userbase.

This thread and others like it can debate the usefulness of various approaches for intellectual satisfaction.

But it's not about wether Evernote fits one or the other, or not.

It merely doesn't with notebooks, and that was asked and answered at the outset.

 

[cwb 225]

In the interest of broadening worldviews, and exposing how not only is there space for a query such as Actant's but a broader debate which has been going on for almost a century...  Some optional background reading from Wikipedia:

 

grab your popcorn...

• Taxonomy, the practice and science of classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(general)
• Categorization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization

Some opposite camps:

• Structuralism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
• Post-Structuralism: where the wild accusations of  radically relativistic or nihilistic abound!   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralists

[jefito 5,589]

@cwb: I'm glad you've found a system that works for you. As you seem quite concerned about adding value to the forums, perhaps there would be more more value in describing your system directly to the original poster than needlessly lecturing me at length about my replies?

[cwb 225]

@jefito: as you're following along, you'll note perhaps where I've done just that on page one, and linked to more.  His quoting indicates he gets it.

 

I am, I suppose, running interference for the harshing on the newbie.

4 Evangelist moderators against one.

 

Who all in their own ways were focused on their use cases rather than the posters, and couldn't find a way of simply directing him to consider the flexibility of tags for meeting the requested feature.

eg: "you know that's not my thing, but I'm pretty sure you could get there with tags rather than notebooks, and btw give the forums a search because I think there are others using Evernote more in that fashion, oh and welcome to the forums".

 

Instead you all got deep into the weeds of dissuading him from his use case.  Not only is it a valid alternate use case, Evernote handles it fine.  So how are we being useful to the community in this thread?

 

And picking my jaw off the floor where I'm reading [paraphrase]: "nah, Evernote doesn't do that, now get off our lawn".  Or lets put a sticky note up "Overthinkers not welcome".  So yay, lets all clap our hands, that we made another "thinks different" newbie go quiet, or just go away (who could perhaps have instead been guided onto the road of a happy, productive, Premium customer).  Not seeing much platform Evangelism in this thread, though you'd think the odds would have been heavily stacked in that direction.

 

Now where's a thread lock when you need one. 

[jefito 5,589]

Hey, I'll cop to not cottoning to the idea that the original poster "got it" with respect to the taxonomic tag strategy, and maybe I could / should have stopped responding to the topic drift occasioned by his (or her) responses, but didn't. Actant, if you're still there, and the multi-concept tags work for you, then I think that that's great, and sorry to for my part in letting things get sidetracked.

 

So, cwb, how about we both agree to stop "adding value" to this topic, what say?

[cwb 225]

That was implied, but yes on the value add.

Fine work on the pull back there.

[bkkh15 0]

i love iphon

[bkkh15 0]

but i refer pc

 

bursaspor beşiktaş maçı canlı izle

beşiktaş bursaspor maçı canlı izle

[BurgersNFries 2,407]

Jeff have ~200. You have 240.

If 20 notes per tag, then Jeff and you would have 4000 and 4800 notes.

 

EN allows 10k tags and 100k notes.

 

Both of you are "heavy" user?

Wow...talk about your segues... On top of it, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

[jefito 5,589]

On the other hand, as best as I can tell, you cannot apply multiple tags to a filter in the Android phone UI, though you can in the tablet UI. That's annoying.

*And*, what the tablet UI does is, once you've chosen a tag to filter on, the resulting tag tree is changed to display only the tags that you can apply to that filter. This is a good thing. That property appears to persist once you open/close any notes.

[actant 22]

On the other hand, as best as I can tell, you cannot apply multiple tags to a filter in the Android phone UI, though you can in the tablet UI. That's annoying.

*And*, what the tablet UI does is, once you've chosen a tag to filter on, the resulting tag tree is changed to display only the tags that you can apply to that filter. This is a good thing. That property appears to persist once you open/close any notes.

 

I'm a long-term user of EN and don't think that filtering by multiple tags is more often used feature than navigating the tree.

Maybe other people need that feature.

 

I've already given up using EN on my iPad.

Next it seems to be the Android pad to collect dust.. 

Maybe I would need a phablet.

[BurgersNFries 2,407]

 

I'm a long-term user of EN and don't think that filtering by multiple tags is more often used feature than navigating the tree.

Maybe other people need that feature.

There's no way for you to know what method is used more often other than in your own use. Personally, it's not unusual for me to use multiple tags, when searching with tags. (I'm also a "long-term" user of EN).

[jefito 5,589]

 

On the other hand, as best as I can tell, you cannot apply multiple tags to a filter in the Android phone UI, though you can in the tablet UI. That's annoying.

 

*And*, what the tablet UI does is, once you've chosen a tag to filter on, the resulting tag tree is changed to display only the tags that you can apply to that filter. This is a good thing. That property appears to persist once you open/close any notes.

I'm a long-term user of EN

 

As am I. 

 

and don't think that filtering by multiple tags is more often used feature than navigating the tree.

Speaking only for yourself, naturally. I didn't say which was better in general, I was just describing some differences, and which works better *for me*.

 

Maybe other people need that feature.

Correct. Me, I would only navigate the tree at all in order to do tag filtering, and I use multi-tag categorization a lot.

 

I've already given up using EN on my iPad.

Next it seems to be the Android pad to collect dust.. 

Maybe I would need a phablet.

Life is filled with choices...

[megsaint 441]

I'm a long-term user of EN and don't think that filtering by multiple tags is more often used feature than navigating the tree.

Maybe other people need that feature.

I need that feature. Speaking only for myself, I think arranging tags in trees is a silly waste of my time. If I wanted something that arranged things in a hierarchical manner, I wouldn't be using Evernote. Although I haven't been around quite as long as BurgersNFries or nor do I have quite as many notes as she does, I think I qualify as a long term, heavy user.

Stating your own use case is helpful to the developers. That doesn't mean that it's the best or only way to do things or that the devs will agree with you.

Best of luck.

[jefito 5,589]

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

You'd lose the bet. Somewhere around 200 for me; not a huge number, but as I've said for a long time, they are more powerful in combination with other tags, and that's what the tablet UI accommodates pretty nicely.

And by the way, I'm not dismissing anything. Again, I am reporting on the differences, and why the tablet's tag UI actually works well for my case (and the phone's UI does not). And in case you hadn't noticed; tag tree navigation *is* important to my usage: you need to navigate the tag tree to multi-select tags for filtering..

[megsaint 441]

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

Nope, I've got 240.

[actant 22]

 

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

Nope, I've got 240.

 

 

Jeff have ~200. You have 240.

If 20 notes per tag, then Jeff and you would have 4000 and 4800 notes.

 

EN allows 10k tags and 100k notes.

 

Both of you are "heavy" user?

[jefito 5,589]

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

Nope, I've got 240.

 

Jeff have ~200. You have 240.

If 20 notes per tag, then Jeff and you would have 4000 and 4800 notes.

 

EN allows 10k tags and 100k notes.

 

Both of you are "heavy" user?

I have no idea what you're trying to imply, but you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

[actant 22]

I have 17,133 notes as of this writing. I'm not sure where you're pulling this 20 notes per tag thing from. And, for the life of me, I can't imagine any situation in which I'd need 1000 tags. 

In my personal exprience, when a tag holds >50 notes, the efficiency of finding the note on moble phone goes down vertically.

Yes, you can put 100 or 200 notes in a single tag.

It's not a problem of "right" or "wrong", but a problem of efficiency.

 

Somebody refered to filtering by multiple tags above.

The more efficient way is to set up a tag to repalce those operation of filtering-by-multiple.

 

The tag is designed to help building an organized virtual "memory", and should not degrade into a simple keyword system.

Hierarchy or tree plays the cetral role in getting information "organized" or "structured".

[jefito 5,589]

BnF, I know that *you* can testify about being a heavy user of Evernote, even if I can't.

Of course, that's not really relevant here...

[actant 22]

 

 

 

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

Nope, I've got 240.

 

 

Jeff have ~200. You have 240.

If 20 notes per tag, then Jeff and you would have 4000 and 4800 notes.

 

EN allows 10k tags and 100k notes.

 

Both of you are "heavy" user?

 

I have no idea what you're trying to imply, but you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

I just want to say, to understand the concerns of a truly heavy user is not an easy job.

[BurgersNFries 2,407]

I just want to say, to understand the concerns of a truly heavy user is not an easy job.

Your example (using # of tags to compute # of notes (using some number-of-tags-per-note you (apparently) pulled out of the air) & then making a determination of whether a user is a "truly heavy" user or not based upon the number of "calculated" notes) is way off base. And not at all relevant. Or both.  As my father used to say, "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?"

[cwb 225]

I'm north of 400 tags (5500 curated notes, but yes I'm a heavy user).

I do have a declutering, nested structure to the tags, but I don't fret over maintaining it.

I rely on a naming taxonomy for the tags which provides it's own nesting, and make use of well crafted tag searches.

My system doesn't rely on or break based on tag nesting. Though I'd miss it if it wasn't there.

[actant 22]

I'm north of 400 tags (5500 curated notes, but yes I'm a heavy user).

I do have a declutering, nested structure to the tags, but I don't fret over maintaining it.

I rely on a naming taxonomy for the tags which provides it's own nesting, and make use of well crafted tag searches.

My system doesn't rely on or break based on tag nesting. Though I'd miss it if it wasn't there.

Naming taxonomy is the only way to make tags usable in iOS version without tag tree feature.

In this way of organizing tags would be of lower and lower efficiency as the number of tags climbs higher and higher.

From my experience, when you have 1000 tags, you have no choice but to depend on a well-maintained tag tree to be efficient.

[cwb 225]

That's tough to guage without any detail.

It's a simple system. I see no scaling issue.

It's rince and repeat widget cranking.

You still sound like you're browsing and surfing tags.

You need to let that go.

In 3 or 4 characters of search field autocomplete I can get anywhere in my tag tree, and pick from a relevant short list of tags. It's doesn't matter where in the tree they are because I'm not hunting for them.

But sure, anything more than several dozen tags with haphazard single word tags is going to create a slow taxing memory mess before you know it. You don't have to get to 1000.

I work hard at simplifying, merging and reducing the number of tags I use, but even still I have yet to run into any framework collisions or scaling gotchas.

[cwb 225]

See the last few posts of: http://discussion.evernote.com/topic/40701-evernote-sub-folders/page-2

[megsaint 441]

 

 

I bet those dismissing the tag tree navigation have <100 tags in the EN account.

Nope, I've got 240.

 

 

Jeff have ~200. You have 240.

If 20 notes per tag, then Jeff and you would have 4000 and 4800 notes.

 

EN allows 10k tags and 100k notes.

 

Both of you are "heavy" user?

 

 

I have 17,133 notes as of this writing. I'm not sure where you're pulling this 20 notes per tag thing from. And, for the life of me, I can't imagine any situation in which I'd need 1000 tags.