On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:

> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
>> new tags.
>
> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
>
>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>> *anything* further in Finder.
>
> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
> all.

Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag. It takes a
tremendously long time for (I assume) the database to get updated, all
the file associations to get made, etc. -- whatever the mechanism is for
the new tag to "take".

And even after it does, if you try to move to another location the file
that you just tagged, you get a "Can't do -- file in use" type of error,
and have to wait even longer until that goes away.

By contrast, new tags in Firefox (the only other place I extensively use
tags) are created, and function, instantly. I'm sure Apple's
programmers have good reasons for whatever the inner workings of
creating tags in Finder are ... but it would sure be great if they found
a way to make them get created faster.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> >> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
> >> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
> >> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
> >> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
> >> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
> >> *anything* further in Finder.
> >
> > Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
> > and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
> > finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
> > all.
>
> Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag. It takes a
> tremendously long time for (I assume) the database to get updated, all
> the file associations to get made, etc. -- whatever the mechanism is for
> the new tag to "take".

no it doesn't.

> And even after it does, if you try to move to another location the file
> that you just tagged, you get a "Can't do -- file in use" type of error,
> and have to wait even longer until that goes away.

i don't know what you're doing, but tagging a file adds another
attribute to the file and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on moving
or copying it or anything else, for that matter.

> By contrast, new tags in Firefox (the only other place I extensively use
> tags) are created, and function, instantly. I'm sure Apple's
> programmers have good reasons for whatever the inner workings of
> creating tags in Finder are ... but it would sure be great if they found
> a way to make them get created faster.

given that tagging a file is instant, there is no need to do anything.

In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
> On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:

>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>
>>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
>>> new tags.
>>
>> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
>>
>>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>>> *anything* further in Finder.
>>
>> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
>> all.

> Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.

No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
actually tag and move the files.

--
'I'll tell you this!' shouted Rincewind. 'I'd rather trust me than
history! Oh, shit, did I just say that?'

On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:

> In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
>>>> new tags.
>>>
>>> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
>>>
>>>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
>>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
>>>
>>> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
>>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
>>> all.
>
>> Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
>
> No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
> files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
> all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
> actually tag and move the files.

I am telling you that this is the experience that I have had, for
several years now.

Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
>

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:

> In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
>>>> new tags.
>>>
>>> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
>>>
>>>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
>>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
>>>
>>> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
>>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
>>> all.
>
>> Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
>
> No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
> files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
> all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
> actually tag and move the files.

I'm happy that you and nospam are not having this problem, Lewis. I
envy you. I *am* having the problem.

Perhaps you don't have as many tags as I do. (If you had to figure out
how to create a new tag, then I assume you have not used very many
tags!) The problem only started when the number of tags got very large.
(At which time I googled and found various advice on solving the
problem, from people who were also experiencing it. So evidently I am
not the only one.)

I currently have over 3500 *unique* tags (on a *lot* more than 3500
files, of course!)

And, again, here is what happens:

I have a file that I want to create a brand-new tag or tags for (and,
most often, use some existing tags too). I unlock the file. I type in
the tags, both the old ones and the new ones, and hit Enter. The
existing tags show up on a shaded oval/rectangle with a circle with a
solid outline; the new ones show up on an unshaded oval/rectangle with a
circle with a dotted outline.

If I then choose Locked, *all* the tags disappear. So I type them in
again, remembering to copy them this time ... so I won't have to type
them again, just in case!

I wait a *long* time. But if I choose Locked, the tags all disappear again.

During this time, I can not do *anything* else in Finder. I have to
open some other program from the taskbar in order to not waste my time.

Anyway, I wait some more. Eventually I get tired of it and hit Enter.
Nothing happens. If I move the cursor down to the main part of the File
Info window, I get the beachball. Which, again, makes Finder unusable.

*EVENTUALLY* the beachball goes away ... and hitting Locked works.

BUT ...

If I try to move the file to another location, I get the "File in Use"
error message.

So once again, I just wait a long time ... until finally whatever is
happening behind the scenes is finished, and everything is back to
normal, and I can move the file.

If you really need it, I can do a screengrab video of this happening. I
would prefer not to waste my time doing that. I'm giving what I hope is
a very clear description of what I am observing.

As I said, evidently other people have this problem too. The solution
they proposed (removing all tags except one from the Sidebar) worked for
a while ... until the number of tags I use got even larger, and even
that solution stopped working.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdv56t$rc2$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

>
> I currently have over 3500 *unique* tags (on a *lot* more than 3500
> files, of course!)

don't do that.

that is *not* how tags are meant to be used.

no wonder you're having problems. you're using something *well* out of
how it was designed to be used.

On 2021-07-29 20:41:35 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
> On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
>> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>> On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
>>>> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
>>>>> new tags.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
>>>>
>>>>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
>>>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>>>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>>>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
>>>>
>>>> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
>>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
>>>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
>>
>> No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
>> files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
>> all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
>> actually tag and move the files.
>
> I am telling you that this is the experience that I have had, for
> several years now.
>
> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
> number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
> mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)

That's simply a ridiculous amount and you probably should create a
proper filing system of folders.

In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
> number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
> mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)

That would have been relevant information to mention up front.

I suggest that that is a ridiculously excessive number, and since you can
apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
same results.

I am not going to create 3500 tags to test this, I don't even use all
the default ones, only red, blue, green, and grey normally.

--
By the way, I think you might be the prettiest girl I've ever seen
outside the pages of a really filthy magazine

On 2021-07-29, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
> number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags
> (I mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of
> course!)

Whoa... Why on Earth would you need that many tags? What are you using
them for?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 7/29/21 2:18 PM, Your Name wrote:

> On 2021-07-29 20:41:35 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
>
>> On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
>>> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
>>>>> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder?
>>>>>> Adding
>>>>>> new tags.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
>>>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> that's not true.  Once you have more than a certain number of tags
>>>>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
>>>>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
>>>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
>>>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
>>>>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No
>>>>> delay at
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> Ah!  I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
>>>
>>> No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
>>> files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
>>> all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
>>> actually tag and move the files.
>>
>> I am telling you that this is the experience that I have had, for
>> several years now.
>>
>> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do.  It only started when the
>> number of tags got extremely large.  I currently have over 3500 tags
>> (I mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of
>> course!)
>
> That's simply a ridiculous amount and you probably should create a
> proper filing system of folders.

I already have a proper filing system of folders, thank you. A very
elaborate one, because I have a huge number of files which fall under a
huge number of categories. So many so (both files and categories) that
I started having trouble finding things anymore. Also, most files fall
under several categories -- for which Aliases are appropriate, with
different Aliases put into different directories ... and I previously
did use them. They work fine, of course. The problem with them was
that (until the tag slowdown) it took longer to create several Aliases
and move them into the appropriate folders than it did simply to create
several tags on the one file. Also, if the original file was ever
moved, the Aliases no longer worked. So tags seemed like the perfect
solution ... and for a long time they were.

"A ridiculous amount" is purely subjective ... if the software is
designed in such a way that it scales well. Evidently the software for
tagging does not scale well.

Just for comparison: I also use tags in Firefox ... *more* tags than I
use in Finder! ... and they *still* work almost instantaneously. So
somehow Firefox's tagging software *does* scale well.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

On 7/29/21 2:28 PM, Lewis wrote:

> In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
>> number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
>> mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
>
> That would have been relevant information to mention up front.

If I had know that it was relevant (i.e that it was unusual!) I would
have mentioned it. I've never tagged anyone else files, or used anyone
else's computer with their tags, so I had no idea whether my situation
was usual or unusual.

> I suggest that that is a ridiculously excessive number,

See my comment to Your Name is another branch, about the subjectivity of
"ridiculously excessive" and how the cutoff between excessive and not
excessive is more about software design.

> and since you can
> apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
> same results.

I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
"information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?

Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
of single-word tags.

> I am not going to create 3500 tags to test this,

I certainly would not ask you to! ;^) You can just take my word for
it, because I *have* done the experiment!

> I don't even use all
> the default ones, only red, blue, green, and grey normally.

I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdvkkt$8pm$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> > and since you can
> > apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
> > same results.
>
> I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
> "information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
> computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
> computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
> etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?

that's not what tags were intended for.

> Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
> of single-word tags.

no you don't.

>
> I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.

an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.

finder is the wrong app.

In article <sdvjse$51a$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> >> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do.  It only started when the
> >> number of tags got extremely large.  I currently have over 3500 tags
> >> (I mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of
> >> course!)
> >
> > That's simply a ridiculous amount and you probably should create a
> > proper filing system of folders.
>
> I already have a proper filing system of folders, thank you. A very
> elaborate one, because I have a huge number of files which fall under a
> huge number of categories. So many so (both files and categories) that
> I started having trouble finding things anymore.

your system is fundamentally broken, plus manually managing a huge
number of files directly in the file system is asking for trouble.

> Also, most files fall
> under several categories -- for which Aliases are appropriate, with
> different Aliases put into different directories ...

that's not what aliases are for, plus that's a *lot* of work to keep up
to date, which has already caused you problems.

> and I previously
> did use them. They work fine, of course.

no they don't. if you're making aliases of files and putting the
aliases in multiple folders, it's guaranteed that some of them are
broken or you otherwise fuck things up.

> The problem with them was
> that (until the tag slowdown) it took longer to create several Aliases
> and move them into the appropriate folders than it did simply to create
> several tags on the one file. Also, if the original file was ever
> moved, the Aliases no longer worked.

aliases continue to work when originals are moved. that's one of its
benefits.

> So tags seemed like the perfect
> solution ... and for a long time they were.

no they weren't.

> "A ridiculous amount" is purely subjective ... if the software is
> designed in such a way that it scales well. Evidently the software for
> tagging does not scale well.

tags were never designed to be abused in the way you're abusing them.

the best solution is to use an asset manager and let the computer do
the work *for* you.

another option is use spotlight.

finder is the *wrong* app for what you're trying to do.

> Just for comparison: I also use tags in Firefox ... *more* tags than I
> use in Finder! ... and they *still* work almost instantaneously. So
> somehow Firefox's tagging software *does* scale well.

you have more than 3500 tags in firefox??

how many bookmarks do you have?

On 7/29/21 6:35 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <sdvkkt$8pm$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>>> and since you can
>>> apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
>>> same results.
>>
>> I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
>> "information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
>> computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
>> computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
>> etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?
>
> that's not what tags were intended for.

Then what *were* they intended for?

And what did you mean by "since you can apply MULTIPLE tags, you could
certainly used far far less to achieve the same results.

>> Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
>> of single-word tags.
>
> no you don't.

I don't come to this ng to argue.

>> I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
>
> an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.

See my comment to someone else about why I find Spotlight (or Smart
Folders, or any other variation on search) unsatisfactory, because it
always returns either far too many files or too few, and usually not the
ones I am looking for -- unless I search on tags which I have created to
be exactly what *I* consider the files to be about.

If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them out.

> finder is the wrong app.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdvll7$dh8$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> >>> and since you can
> >>> apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
> >>> same results.
> >>
> >> I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
> >> "information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
> >> computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
> >> computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
> >> etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?
> >
> > that's not what tags were intended for.
>
> Then what *were* they intended for?

correct

> And what did you mean by "since you can apply MULTIPLE tags, you could
> certainly used far far less to achieve the same results.

i didn't say that, but the statement is true.

you've just taken to an extreme well beyond any design constraints.

> >> Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
> >> of single-word tags.
> >
> > no you don't.
>
> I don't come to this ng to argue.

nobody is arguing,

people are telling you what you're doing is fundamentally flawed.

> >> I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
> >
> > an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.
>
> See my comment to someone else about why I find Spotlight (or Smart
> Folders, or any other variation on search) unsatisfactory, because it
> always returns either far too many files or too few, and usually not the
> ones I am looking for -- unless I search on tags which I have created to
> be exactly what *I* consider the files to be about.

use more effective queries, with a judicious use of tags, not 3500 of
them.

> If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them out.

what types of assets do you have?

On 7/29/21 2:08 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <sdv56t$rc2$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> I currently have over 3500 *unique* tags (on a *lot* more than 3500
>> files, of course!)
>
> don't do that.
>
> that is *not* how tags are meant to be used.
>
> no wonder you're having problems. you're using something *well* out of
> how it was designed to be used.

Guess I was spoiled by how well Firefox uses tags for exactly this! ;^)
(On websites rather than on files, obviously. Well, it would also do
this for files on my computer too ... but then they would be opened in
Firefox rather than in the appropriate program. But maybe I'll
experiment with tagging my files in Firefox, to at least be able to
*find* them quickly, since Firefox lets me use as many tags as I want,
with no slowdown.)

It would seem to me (naively, evidently) that that's *exactly* what tags
would be good for -- to characterize files in such a way that I can find
all the files that match my characterization.

If not tags, then what *is* built into MacOS, if anything, that does this?

(And, as I asked another responder, what *are* tags intended for in
Finder, if not that?)

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdvmgk$kjk$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> Guess I was spoiled by how well Firefox uses tags for exactly this! ;^)

firefox is not a file manager, so no it doesn't.

> If not tags, then what *is* built into MacOS, if anything, that does this?

spotlight.

but don't limit yourself to what's built into mac os.

directly managing files is the wrong solution. it's guaranteed to fail,
as you are finding out the hard way.

find an app designed specifically for managing assets, where you can do
all sorts of things that are impossible (or at best very difficult) in
the file system.

On 7/29/21 6:53 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <sdvll7$dh8$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> and since you can
>>>>> apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the
>>>>> same results.
>>>>
>>>> I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
>>>> "information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
>>>> computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
>>>> computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
>>>> etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?
>>>
>>> that's not what tags were intended for.
>>
>> Then what *were* they intended for?
>
> correct
>
>> And what did you mean by "since you can apply MULTIPLE tags, you could
>> certainly used far far less to achieve the same results.
>
> i didn't say that,

My apologies -- I miscounted the number of indenttions.

> but the statement is true.
>
> you've just taken to an extreme well beyond any design constraints.
>
>>>> Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
>>>> of single-word tags.
>>>
>>> no you don't.
>>
>> I don't come to this ng to argue.
>
> nobody is arguing,
>
> people are telling you what you're doing is fundamentally flawed.
>
>>>> I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
>>>
>>> an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.
>>
>> See my comment to someone else about why I find Spotlight (or Smart
>> Folders, or any other variation on search) unsatisfactory, because it
>> always returns either far too many files or too few, and usually not the
>> ones I am looking for -- unless I search on tags which I have created to
>> be exactly what *I* consider the files to be about.
>
> use more effective queries, with a judicious use of tags, not 3500 of
> them.
>
>> If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them out.
>
> what types of assets do you have?

The "assets" that I have are files ... and I want to be able to find
them. (See #3, below.)

I'm going to say just a few things ... and then I'm not sure there's any
point in continuing this thread. (See #4.)

(1) I have so many files that they have become hard to find ... despite
having a very well organized file structure. (The difficulty there is
that, for example, it is hard to come up with a file system structure in
which, for example, Information Theory and Common Practice Period
Harmony are in folders which are close ... but there is, for example, a
paper which applies Information Theory to Common Practice Period
Harmony. Hence my original attempt to use Aliases, to get that file to
show up in both the Information Theory folder and the Harmony folder.)

(2) What I am looking for is something that will let me characterize
files according to my own criteria (including multiple criteria per
file) and then search for them based on those criteria. So that paper
above would have the tags "information theory", "harmony", and
(possibly) "common practice period" -- and tags would be especially
useful, since those terms might not be in the *name* of the file, so I
could search on tags rather than (or in addition to) file names.

(3) When I google (or duckduckgo, rather) "what are macos tags for",
*everything* that shows up, on the Apple support pages and on user group
pages like macrumors, or on individual pages, says some variation on "to
make files and folders easier to find". (Some even say "to *organize*
[emphasis mine] files and folders" ... but "organize" is ambiguous, so
I'll ignore it.) But *yes*, to make them easier to find! (And many of
those sites say "by searching on tags".) In other words, *exactly* what
I have been trying to use them for!

But, evidently, their programming makes them inadequate for this ... at
least, at a scale which is truly useful for the large number of files I
have, and the large number of categories.

(4) It's not helpful to be told that I should be doing this differently,
without be told what I should do instead -- to be told that I am doing
it wrong without being told how to do it right.

(5) So if 3500 is excessive, what number is "appropriate"? In theory, I
guess the number of tags (or whatever) needed to *completely*
characterize all my files would be somewhere between log-base-2 of the
number of files and log-base-2 of the number of bits of information
contained in the files -- and that would be *far more* specificity than
needed. So I agree, 3500 is excessive. But trying to figure out
exactly *which* English-language tags (or whatever) to use is not easy!
So, as I acquired new files over the years, and tagged them as seemed
appropriate at the time, that's how many I would up with.

BTW, both in my file system and in my use of tags, I started with a
small number of folders, and later with a small number of tags. But
when the number of files in any of those grew too large, I subdivided
.... and then later had to subdivide again ... etc. So the numbers grew
exponentially.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <sdvqql$at0$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> >> If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them
> >> out.
> >
> > what types of assets do you have?
>
> The "assets" that I have are files ... and I want to be able to find
> them. (See #3, below.)

obviously they're files.

what *types* of files?

photos? music? videos? text documents (pdf, word, etc.)? other?

each type has a different solution.

it sounds like you have text documents, which needs a different asset
manager than one for photos or videos.

> I'm going to say just a few things ... and then I'm not sure there's any
> point in continuing this thread. (See #4.)
>
> (1) I have so many files that they have become hard to find ... despite
> having a very well organized file structure.

it's going to be a *substantial* amount of effort to manually keep
things organized via the file system with even a fraction of the files
you claim to have.

> (The difficulty there is
> that, for example, it is hard to come up with a file system structure in
> which, for example, Information Theory and Common Practice Period
> Harmony are in folders which are close ... but there is, for example, a
> paper which applies Information Theory to Common Practice Period
> Harmony. Hence my original attempt to use Aliases, to get that file to
> show up in both the Information Theory folder and the Harmony folder.)

that's the problem in a nutshell.

managing files directly in the file system using finder or windows
explorer is at best, inefficient and worst, a disaster.

creating aliases and moving them into various folders is just begging
for problems.

asset managers are designed specifically for that task.

the computer is there to do work *for* you.

> (2) What I am looking for is something that will let me characterize
> files according to my own criteria (including multiple criteria per
> file) and then search for them based on those criteria. So that paper
> above would have the tags "information theory", "harmony", and
> (possibly) "common practice period" -- and tags would be especially
> useful, since those terms might not be in the *name* of the file, so I
> could search on tags rather than (or in addition to) file names.

by using keywords in an asset manager.

it might be possible to do it with spotlight.

> (3) When I google (or duckduckgo, rather) "what are macos tags for",
> *everything* that shows up, on the Apple support pages and on user group
> pages like macrumors, or on individual pages, says some variation on "to
> make files and folders easier to find". (Some even say "to *organize*
> [emphasis mine] files and folders" ... but "organize" is ambiguous, so
> I'll ignore it.) But *yes*, to make them easier to find! (And many of
> those sites say "by searching on tags".) In other words, *exactly* what
> I have been trying to use them for!

none of those suggested using thousands of tags.

> But, evidently, their programming makes them inadequate for this ... at
> least, at a scale which is truly useful for the large number of files I
> have, and the large number of categories.

they never intended anyone to use thousands of tags.

it's actually surprising it lets you create anywhere near that many.

> (4) It's not helpful to be told that I should be doing this differently,
> without be told what I should do instead -- to be told that I am doing
> it wrong without being told how to do it right.

spotlight and/or asset manager.

> (5) So if 3500 is excessive, what number is "appropriate"? In theory, I
> guess the number of tags (or whatever) needed to *completely*
> characterize all my files would be somewhere between log-base-2 of the
> number of files and log-base-2 of the number of bits of information
> contained in the files -- and that would be *far more* specificity than
> needed. So I agree, 3500 is excessive. But trying to figure out
> exactly *which* English-language tags (or whatever) to use is not easy!
> So, as I acquired new files over the years, and tagged them as seemed
> appropriate at the time, that's how many I would up with.

in other words, your system is flawed.

> BTW, both in my file system and in my use of tags, I started with a
> small number of folders, and later with a small number of tags. But
> when the number of files in any of those grew too large, I subdivided
> ... and then later had to subdivide again ... etc. So the numbers grew
> exponentially.

yet another reason why using the file system is a bad idea.

the computer is there to do the work *for* you.

In message <sdvkkt$8pm$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
> On 7/29/21 2:28 PM, Lewis wrote:

>> In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
>>> number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
>>> mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
>>
>> That would have been relevant information to mention up front.

> If I had know that it was relevant (i.e that it was unusual!)

Well, the system provides 7 tags, and you have 3500, seems reasonable
to think that having 500x the tags would be unusual.

> I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.

I have 53TB of files just on my Mac mini, and I have no problems finding
the files I want to find without using 3500 tags.

--
'I think, if you want thousands, you've got to fight for one.'

On 7/29/21 8:58 PM, nospam wrote:

> In article <sdvqql$at0$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>>>> If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them
>>>> out.
>>>
>>> what types of assets do you have?
>>
>> The "assets" that I have are files ... and I want to be able to find
>> them. (See #3, below.)
>
> obviously they're files.
>
> what *types* of files?
>
> photos? music? videos? text documents (pdf, word, etc.)? other?
>
> each type has a different solution.
>
> it sounds like you have text documents, which needs a different asset
> manager than one for photos or videos.

All of the above.

An example: "Wijaya Kusuma" is the name of a music composition by the
Balinese composer I Nyoman Windha. I have .wav files of performances
and rehearsals of the piece. I also have video files of other
rehearsals and performances. I have several Sibelius Music Notation
files of the score of the piece in Western music notation. I have .txt
and .pdf files of notes about the piece, reviews of the piece, and
audience souvenir programs for performances of the piece. I want to be
able to click on "Wijaya Kusuma" in ... something! ... and have them all
show up! Originally they were (mostly) all in a folder called Wijaya
Kusuma. But then I realized that .wav files should probably go in the
My Music folder (or a subfolder) because different info about the file
shows up than if it's in a non-music folder, such as various audio
information. Likewise the various video information shows up only if
the files are in one of the video folders. Not all the files have
"Wijaya Kusuma" in their title ... and some of the files, such as the
programs for the performances, have many other pieces as well, which I
would also like to be able to search for by *their* names.

And the *only* thing I want to be able to do is simply *find* them.
After that, anything else I want to do is handled merely by opening the
files, which of course starts the appropriate program. So I don't know
in what respect they need different "asset management".

>> I'm going to say just a few things ... and then I'm not sure there's any
>> point in continuing this thread. (See #4.)
>>
>> (1) I have so many files that they have become hard to find ... despite
>> having a very well organized file structure.
>
> it's going to be a *substantial* amount of effort to manually keep
> things organized via the file system with even a fraction of the files
> you claim to have.
>
>> (The difficulty there is
>> that, for example, it is hard to come up with a file system structure in
>> which, for example, Information Theory and Common Practice Period
>> Harmony are in folders which are close ... but there is, for example, a
>> paper which applies Information Theory to Common Practice Period
>> Harmony. Hence my original attempt to use Aliases, to get that file to
>> show up in both the Information Theory folder and the Harmony folder.)
>
> that's the problem in a nutshell.
>
> managing files directly in the file system using finder or windows
> explorer is at best, inefficient and worst, a disaster.
>
> creating aliases and moving them into various folders is just begging
> for problems.

I agree.

> asset managers are designed specifically for that task.

When you mentioned asset managers before, I didn't know what an asset
manager was. My first google search turned up elaborate database
management systems and the like, for enterprises. So that seemed like
hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. So now I know what I am looking for.

>
> the computer is there to do work *for* you.
>
>> (2) What I am looking for is something that will let me characterize
>> files according to my own criteria (including multiple criteria per
>> file) and then search for them based on those criteria. So that paper
>> above would have the tags "information theory", "harmony", and
>> (possibly) "common practice period" -- and tags would be especially
>> useful, since those terms might not be in the *name* of the file, so I
>> could search on tags rather than (or in addition to) file names.
>
> by using keywords in an asset manager.
>
> it might be possible to do it with spotlight.
>
>> (3) When I google (or duckduckgo, rather) "what are macos tags for",
>> *everything* that shows up, on the Apple support pages and on user group
>> pages like macrumors, or on individual pages, says some variation on "to
>> make files and folders easier to find". (Some even say "to *organize*
>> [emphasis mine] files and folders" ... but "organize" is ambiguous, so
>> I'll ignore it.) But *yes*, to make them easier to find! (And many of
>> those sites say "by searching on tags".) In other words, *exactly* what
>> I have been trying to use them for!
>
> none of those suggested using thousands of tags.

And none of them said not to use thousands of tags. I'm not sure that
any of them even mentioned numbers of tags at all!

(BTW, I mentioned Firefox only to contrast its ability to apply
thousands of tags *easily* to website vs Finder's inability to do it
easily to files. Yes, Firefox is not a file manager ... but I was not
trying to use tags to *manage* files (whatever exactly that means), only
to find them.)

>> But, evidently, their programming makes them inadequate for this ... at
>> least, at a scale which is truly useful for the large number of files I
>> have, and the large number of categories.
>
> they never intended anyone to use thousands of tags.
>
> it's actually surprising it lets you create anywhere near that many.
>
>> (4) It's not helpful to be told that I should be doing this differently,
>> without be told what I should do instead -- to be told that I am doing
>> it wrong without being told how to do it right.
>
> spotlight

In my use of spotlight so far, it always returned *way* too much -- so
many files that wading through all their names is almost as hard as
simply wading through their names directly in the folders -- and
simultaneously not enough -- i.e. not the particular file I was actually
looking for, it I can't think of the proper search term. But if there
are subtleties (filters? booleans?) to Spotlight, I will try them out --
but I suspect they would have to be used every time you searched, right?
Not something that could be done once (like a tag) and never have to
be done again?

> and/or asset manager.

Yes, I will check out asset managers.

I should mention that, actually, tags work *perfectly* ... once they are
created. Clicking on a tag in the Sidebar or in All Tags *instantly*
populates the list. It's only the *act* of creating a tag which has
become frustratingly slow.

So I do have another question: Whatever it is that an asset manager
does to make it easy to find files, I would still have to set it up,
right? I have already put in a huge amount of time creating those tags
.... which *do* work exactly as desired *once* they are created! ... and
wouldn't I have to spend just as much time recreating all *that* work in
an asset manager?

>> (5) So if 3500 is excessive, what number is "appropriate"? In theory, I
>> guess the number of tags (or whatever) needed to *completely*
>> characterize all my files would be somewhere between log-base-2 of the
>> number of files and log-base-2 of the number of bits of information
>> contained in the files -- and that would be *far more* specificity than
>> needed. So I agree, 3500 is excessive. But trying to figure out
>> exactly *which* English-language tags (or whatever) to use is not easy!
>> So, as I acquired new files over the years, and tagged them as seemed
>> appropriate at the time, that's how many I would up with.
>
> in other words, your system is flawed.

Not a useful comment. It's not actionable.

Also, by "my system", do you mean the way I was trying to use tags? If
so, then thank you, you *have* suggested alternatives, which I will look
into.

But if you mean the way I choose to characterize my files and think
about them ... well, then that's just rude. So I will assume that that
is *not* what you mean.

>> BTW, both in my file system and in my use of tags, I started with a
>> small number of folders, and later with a small number of tags. But
>> when the number of files in any of those grew too large, I subdivided
>> ... and then later had to subdivide again ... etc. So the numbers grew
>> exponentially.
>
> yet another reason why using the file system is a bad idea.
>
> the computer is there to do the work *for* you.

In article <se00vl$833$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> >>>> If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them
> >>>> out.
> >>>
> >>> what types of assets do you have?
> >>
> >> The "assets" that I have are files ... and I want to be able to find
> >> them. (See #3, below.)
> >
> > obviously they're files.
> >
> > what *types* of files?
> >
> > photos? music? videos? text documents (pdf, word, etc.)? other?
> >
> > each type has a different solution.
> >
> > it sounds like you have text documents, which needs a different asset
> > manager than one for photos or videos.
>
> All of the above.

then you'll need more than one. no big deal.

> >
> >> (3) When I google (or duckduckgo, rather) "what are macos tags for",
> >> *everything* that shows up, on the Apple support pages and on user group
> >> pages like macrumors, or on individual pages, says some variation on "to
> >> make files and folders easier to find". (Some even say "to *organize*
> >> [emphasis mine] files and folders" ... but "organize" is ambiguous, so
> >> I'll ignore it.) But *yes*, to make them easier to find! (And many of
> >> those sites say "by searching on tags".) In other words, *exactly* what
> >> I have been trying to use them for!
> >
> > none of those suggested using thousands of tags.
>
> And none of them said not to use thousands of tags. I'm not sure that
> any of them even mentioned numbers of tags at all!

yea they did. i did a quick search and there were a few links where
people were complaining about 1000+ tags, much less than your 3500.

> >
> > spotlight
>
> In my use of spotlight so far, it always returned *way* too much -- so
> many files that wading through all their names is almost as hard as
> simply wading through their names directly in the folders -- and
> simultaneously not enough -- i.e. not the particular file I was actually
> looking for, it I can't think of the proper search term.

it's doing what you tell it to do.

if your query is not specific, you'll get a lot of results.

> But if there
> are subtleties (filters? booleans?) to Spotlight, I will try them out --
> but I suspect they would have to be used every time you searched, right?
> Not something that could be done once (like a tag) and never have to
> be done again?

you can save a query as a smart folder.

> >> BTW, both in my file system and in my use of tags, I started with a
> >> small number of folders, and later with a small number of tags. But
> >> when the number of files in any of those grew too large, I subdivided
> >> ... and then later had to subdivide again ... etc. So the numbers grew
> >> exponentially.
> >
> > yet another reason why using the file system is a bad idea.
> >
> > the computer is there to do the work *for* you.
>
> Uh ... yes ... that's why I was creating tags on the computer! ;^)

that's *you* doing work.

> I will definitely look at Asset Managers ... but unless the Asset
> Manager is an AI which is automatically going to characterize all my
> files for me (ha!),

don't laugh. that's one of the things they do best.

photo managers, for example, can automatically detect faces and
recognize scenes, including identifying famous landmarks.

you will have to tell it people's names, but other than that, it's
mostly automatic.

you can then search for mary and bob, mary but not bob, eiffel tower,
niagara falls, anything taken in australia, mountains, waterfalls, dogs
or whatever else. the queries can be as simple or as complex as you
want. no manual tagging required. you can also add your own keywords
for additional information, but the bulk of the work has been done for
you.

think of google image search. do you think that every photo on every
website is tagged with what's in it? certainly not. google figures it
out. do a search for sydney opera house and that's what you get.

is it perfect? nope. nothing is, including doing it manually, if that's
even a realistic goal. it may not be a big deal to manually tag a few
hundred photos, but it *is* a big deal to do that for 100,000 photos.

> it's still going to have to be *me* deciding on the
> classifications or whatever, and telling the Asset Manager how to apply
> them to the files ... so ... once I get the Asset Manager up to where it
> can do what the tags are already doing, if it will be faster and easier
> to use than tags when I acquire *new* files, then that's definitely a
> plus. But I'm not looking forward to spending all the time to get it to
> that point ... unless there is something I'm completely misunderstanding
> that would get it to that point quickly.

migration may be an issue but that's a one time thing.

it's unlikely it will 'just work', but there may be ways to automate it.

for example, a script could read the existing tags and then translate
it to whatever the asset manager needs.