Content Folders! WE NEED FOLDERS!

[jael]

Originally Posted by moxy789

Were you perhaps referring to my previous post

I think they were referring to my post from yesterday. I hadn't seen your earlier message, so I posted a similar workaround that we had been discussing on Amazon's forum. GMTA! :-)

I'm not suggesting that it's the ideal solution.

I'm with you that having to open every book to add a keyword for tagging is definitely not an ideal solution. It's just a temporary, very kludgy workaround until Amazon wakes up and implements something, whether it's tags or folders.

[catsittingstill]

The note/annotation tags proposed for Kindles only work on the K2; apparently the K1 does not search notes/annotations with the search function. FWIW.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

The note/annotation tags proposed for Kindles only work on the K2; apparently the K1 does not search notes/annotations with the search function. FWIW.

Really. Are you sure? Maybe you just didn't wait for it to be indexed.

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

So, you say what makes tags more usable is what's bad about tags. That's the exact problem with folder. You have to define a taxonomy and stick with it. What if an ebook would fit in two places in your folder scheme?

EVERY tags is a main category. VERY tag is a sub-category. That's the whole point. You can choose at any time where you want to start. Today you might want to start at a genre tag, tomorrow you might want to start at UNREAD tag, the next day you might want to start with the Publisher tag.

My point was that ontological there are some things you can represent with folders that you cannot represent with tags without adding the concept of levels to the tag and make sure that every application respect these levels. I wanted to point out that since somebody made the erroneous claim that you using tags could represent everything you can represent with flat tags.

[TallMomof2]

I have over 2000 books on my Kindle, there is no way I would open every book and add a note to tag the book. I'd rather just read.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

I have over 2000 books on my Kindle, there is no way I would open every book and add a note to tag the book. I'd rather just read.

Yea, search works good enough for now. I'm not even sure with folders I would even bother. All I might do is create a "read" folder and move book there after I have read them. But, probably not. Right now I just delete them.

BOb

[catsittingstill]

regarding notes as tags not working on K1

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Really. Are you sure? Maybe you just didn't wait for it to be indexed.

BOb

You are right. Apparently they *do* work. My bad :-)

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by tompe

My point was that ontological there are some things you can represent with folders that you cannot represent with tags without adding the concept of levels to the tag and make sure that every application respect these levels. I wanted to point out that since somebody made the erroneous claim that you using tags could represent everything you can represent with flat tags.

Help me to understand your statements. What can you represent with folders that cannot be represented with tags and "And" queries/filters? Someone earlier suggested with folder A, sub-folders B and C, then content items in C is identified as "has tags A And C". Perhaps I am missing something.

[gkbeer]

They get my vote over folders.

MP3's have tags, they are drawn from online databases like CDDB. Music library software is able to get and apply tags automatically. The tags live inside the mp3 files.

Amazon should do the same kind of thing for the Kindle.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Thomas Ryan

Help me to understand your statements. What can you represent with folders that cannot be represented with tags and "And" queries/filters? Someone earlier suggested with folder A, sub-folders B and C, then content items in C is identified as "has tags A And C". Perhaps I am missing something.

With folder named A, containing subfolder named B which contains subfolder named C, and subfolder named C which contains subfolder named B:

A -> B -> C
   -> C -> B

how do you distinguish files in B->C subfolders from files in C->B subfolders?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

With folder named A, containing subfolder named B which contains subfolder named C, and subfolder named C which contains subfolder named B:

A -> B -> C
   -> C -> B

how do you distinguish files in B->C subfolders from files in C->B subfolders?

That was one of the cases I had in mind.

With folders you also have the knowledge given the example that if the top folder is A then the only possible sub folders are C and B. Since making up names and getting them consistent is the hard part then such support is very good if it is built in the representation so you do not need additional tools or files to get it.

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

With folder named A, containing subfolder named B which contains subfolder named C, and subfolder named C which contains subfolder named B:

A -> B -> C
   -> C -> B

how do you distinguish files in B->C subfolders from files in C->B subfolders?

I think you might be thinking "navigation" vs "underlying data representation" vs - "what am I really trying to find"

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

With folder named A, containing subfolder named B which contains subfolder named C, and subfolder named C which contains subfolder named B:

A -> B -> C
   -> C -> B

how do you distinguish files in B->C subfolders from files in C->B subfolders?

I think you might be thinking "navigation" vs "underlying data representation"

Consider -

A - my books
B - fiction/non-fiction
C- Author X, Y or Z

folder content:

mybooks -> fiction -> X-author -> book_id_1
mybooks -> fiction -> Y-author -> book_id_2
mybooks -> fiction -> Z-author -> book_id_3

mybooks -> non-fiction -> X-author -> book_id_4
mybooks -> non-fiction -> Y-author -> book_id_5
mybooks -> non-fiction -> Z-author -> book_id_6

(where book_id_x, can be a single book, or a list of books)

tags:

book_id_1 = {mybooks, fiction, X-author}
book_id_2 = {mybooks, fiction, Y-author}
book_id_3 = {mybooks, fiction, Z-author}
book_id_4 = {mybooks, non-fiction, X-author}
book_id_5 = {mybooks, non-fiction, Y-author}
book_id_6 = {mybooks, non-fiction, Z-author}

inverted:

mybooks = {book_id_1, book_id_2, book_id_3, book_id_4, book_id_5, book_id_6}
fiction = {book_id_1, book_id_2, book_id_3}
non-fiction = {book_id_4, book_id_5, book_id_6}
X-author = {book_id_1, book_id_4}
Y-author = {book_id_2, book_id_5}
Z-author = {book_id_3, book_id_6}

compare:

A->B->C with A->C->B

for some example A= "my books", B = "fiction", C="Y_author"

A->B->C = {book_id_1, book_id_2, book_id_3, book_id_4, book_id_5, book_id_6} -> {book_id_1, book_id_2, book_id_3} -> {book_id_2}


A->C->B = {book_id_1, book_id_2, book_id_3, book_id_4, book_id_5, book_id_6} -> {book_id_2, book_id_5} -> {book_id_2}

The "And" operator is commutative, so the end result is the same. I agree there are two different paths there.

So in a folder dominated UI, you might have a different navigation experience to find your target than the more general approach. That seems irrelevant given the next observation.

e.g. in this case - given no priorites/levels in the tags - I choose one tag, let's say "mybooks", I am now presented with a second selection choice from {fiction, non-fiction, Author X, Author_Y , Author_Z}. I pick one, and the choice refines.
I am not forced to navigate according to a single folder scheme. (your mental model vs. mine)

Note the power of how this generalizes - say "A" extends to be {"my books", "your books"} - I can find a particular book_id starting with my books vs. yours, or I can start with author, refine by fiction-type, and then add the ownership criteria at the very end so I know which owner (library?) to go to.

Someone pointed out that the flattened list (second selection above) may be too big, but lists are too big all the time, and that is an entirely separate issue. On a huge screen less a problem than on a cell phone regardless of approach. I would like to separate presentation from the underlying representation. I am happy to understand what I am missing on this topic.

Last - someone mentioned "ontology". I am not sure what that means in this context, but I will agree that with a pure "tag" approach what is lost is the "category" name for a selected subset group of tags. In the example above there is no wording for "fiction value". So, unless this data is stored elsewhere there is no way to label a certain groups of tags. But who cares? (rhetorical) Make a more flexible User Interaction without that constraint. Live free from folders! (Or, if you insist, have tags for tags; ha! think that one through)

[tompe]

You are talking navigation. The difference was ontological.

For me it is trivially true that flat tags cannot represent everything you can represent with folders (and vice versa). With folders you can represent that it is not allowed for a book to be a thriller and humorous at the same time. That you cannot say with flat tags.

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by tompe

You are talking navigation. The difference was ontological.

For me it is trivially true that flat tags cannot represent everything you can represent with folders (and vice versa). With folders you can represent that it is not allowed for a book to be a thriller and humorous at the same time. That you cannot say with flat tags.

This subject is obviously not trivial. Perhaps you meant "virtually" true instead of "trivially" true?

To your point - Yes, with tags you can not represent that it is not allowed for a book to be a thriller and humorous at the same time.
(More broadly, so many double negatives means we're already on thin ice.)

I agree with your comment at a purely logical level, but I think you are arguing from an increasingly narrow platform. Moreover, if your rigid representation(no "not's") is the tipping point, then by your own example, what happens when a humorous thriller is written? It has no home? A new "folder"? Named? On the other hand, tags seem to "just work".