Delete a Smart Folder / Saved Search?

[Dudley Brooks]

(High Sierra)

I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
modifying their search criteria.

I can't find anything about how to delete one. (It's easy to remove it
from the Sidebar. But it still shows up in the Saved Searches.)

The Delete key does not work, of course -- it doesn't work anywhere in
Finder, right?

And "right-clicking" (control-clicking) on a Saved Search gives a menud
that does *not* include "Move to Trash".

I tried deleting all the search criteria. This makes the Saved Search
return nothing, of course ... but the Saved Search itself is still
visible in the Saved Searches folder.

It's nothing harmful. But it's irritating to have an unwanted saved
search sitting there doing nothing ... and infuriating that Apple did
not provide a way to delete one.

[Your Name]

On 2021-07-18 23:23:49 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
>
> (High Sierra)
>
> I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
> modifying their search criteria.

Anything with "Smart" in the title is almost always useless and not
smart in any way.

It's best to avoid them all - that includes "Smart Folders" (Finder and
Mail), "Smart Home" devices, and smart asses in real life or on the
internet (of which you'll no doubt see lots of replies to this saying
how great "Smart" things are).

> I can't find anything about how to delete one. (It's easy to remove it
> from the Sidebar. But it still shows up in the Saved Searches.)
>
> The Delete key does not work, of course -- it doesn't work anywhere in
> Finder, right?
>
> And "right-clicking" (control-clicking) on a Saved Search gives a menud
> that does *not* include "Move to Trash".
>
> I tried deleting all the search criteria. This makes the Saved Search
> return nothing, of course ... but the Saved Search itself is still
> visible in the Saved Searches folder.
>
> It's nothing harmful. But it's irritating to have an unwanted saved
> search sitting there doing nothing ... and infuriating that Apple did
> not provide a way to delete one.

When you saved the Smart Folder / Search, you would have been given a
normal Save dialog window to tell macOS where you wanted to save it and
what name to use. Unless you purposely changed it, the default location
for High Sierra is:

Users -> {your username} -> Library -> Saved Searches

*BUT*
make 120% sure that folder is empty first!!

From experience in Mail, I can tell you that deleting a silly "Smart
Folder" in can ridiculously also delete all the original files from
their various real locations too. Just one of the reasons they're
useless.

[nospam]

In article <sd2ij4$1jod$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name

<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
> > modifying their search criteria.
>
> Anything with "Smart" in the title is almost always useless and not
> smart in any way.
>
> It's best to avoid them all - that includes "Smart Folders" (Finder and
> Mail), "Smart Home" devices, and smart asses in real life or on the
> internet (of which you'll no doubt see lots of replies to this saying
> how great "Smart" things are).

utter nonsense.

>
> From experience in Mail, I can tell you that deleting a silly "Smart
> Folder" in can ridiculously also delete all the original files from
> their various real locations too. Just one of the reasons they're
> useless.

significant user error.

[Dudley Brooks]

On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2021-07-19, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

>> On 2021-07-18 23:23:49 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
>>>
>>> (High Sierra)
>>>
>>> I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
>>> modifying their search criteria.
>>
>> Anything with "Smart" in the title is almost always useless and not
>> smart in any way.
>

> Nonsense. Smart folders are very handy.
>
> Remaining drivel rightfully ignored.

Hi. I don't mean to be rude, but ...

(1) An interesting conversation among the three of you ... but ...

(2) Yes, I know that they are found in ~/Library/Saved Searches. As I
said in my original post, [after trying to delete them] "... the Saved

Search itself is still visible in the Saved Searches folder."

[Apologies, Jolly Roger. I guess I didn't make it clear that that's
what I was referring to.]

(3) Could someone please answer my actual question: How do I *get rid*
of one of them? They don't seem to be deletable.

Thanks.


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

[Dudley Brooks]

Hmm ... Well, the most obvious and simple way works ... drag them into
Trash!

[Lewis]

In message <iljuh4...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> I believe those are stored in your ~/Library/Saved Searches directory.

R-click on the saved search, "Show in Enclosing Folder", then delete the
file, R-click again and "remove from sidebar" (or empty the trash).

--
She was a dull person, but a sensational invitation to make babies.”

[Lewis]

In message <sd2ij4$1jod$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2021-07-18 23:23:49 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
>>
>> (High Sierra)
>>
>> I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
>> modifying their search criteria.

> Anything with "Smart" in the title is almost always useless and not
> smart in any way.

Completely untrue.

> It's best to avoid them all - that includes "Smart Folders" (Finder and
> Mail)

Smart folders in Mail are the only way I sort my mail anymore. Smart
folders in Music (née iTunes) are the only way I organize my music. I
have a couple of smart folders in the Finder that I have used for years.

For example:

Kind is PDF
ANY of the following:
Date Created is within last [30] days
Date Modified is within last [30] days

Very useful.

> When you saved the Smart Folder / Search, you would have been given a
> normal Save dialog window to tell macOS where you wanted to save it and
> what name to use. Unless you purposely changed it, the default location
> for High Sierra is:

> Users -> {your username} -> Library -> Saved Searches

> *BUT*
> make 120% sure that folder is empty first!!

Do not bother deleting the folder, you can simply delete the files you
no longer want.

> From experience in Mail, I can tell you that deleting a silly "Smart
> Folder" in can ridiculously also delete all the original files from
> their various real locations too.

Absolute bullshit. I create and delete smart folders in Mail all the
time, and have for about a decade. Deleting a smart folder never deletes
the files. It's not even possible for it to delete the files since the
smart folder is a search query file which contains nothing but the
query. Deleting it cannot possibly delete anything but the query. You
have a PEBKAC error.

--
Why is it so damn hot in here, and why are we all in a handbasket?

[Lewis]

In message <sd3go7$7ss$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
> On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> On 2021-07-19, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> On 2021-07-18 23:23:49 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
>>>>
>>>> (High Sierra)
>>>>
>>>> I've found online instructions for creating Smart Folders and for
>>>> modifying their search criteria.
>>>
>>> Anything with "Smart" in the title is almost always useless and not
>>> smart in any way.
>>
>> Nonsense. Smart folders are very handy.
>>
>> Remaining drivel rightfully ignored.

> Hi. I don't mean to be rude, but ...

> (1) An interesting conversation among the three of you ... but ...

> (2) Yes, I know that they are found in ~/Library/Saved Searches. As I
> said in my original post, [after trying to delete them] "... the Saved
> Search itself is still visible in the Saved Searches folder."

Moving them to the trash does not delete them, it simply moves them to
the trash, Either actually DELETE them (⌥⌘-Delete), or empty your trash.

--
Grow a pair of tits, Coldwater.

[Dudley Brooks]

Right. Exactly what I did ... except ... "delete the file" was the hard
part, which I was asking how to do. The usual methods -- those that I
remembered -- didn't work. Ctrl-click brought up a menu which did not
include Move to Trash.

Of course, I had forgotten (late at night?) the *most* usual method ...
simply dragging it to Trash! <embarrassed>

[Dudley Brooks]

On 7/19/21 9:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> That's what I was alluding to, yes. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

That's OK -- I don't expect anyone to have to anticipate my
stupidity/absent-mindedness/late-night confusion! ;^)

[Dudley Brooks]

Yes, I knew that moving to trash is not the same as completely deleting.
What I did *not* know was how to move them to Trash! (I was so
exhausted that I forgot that you could simply drag them!)

But what I *never* knew, after all the years of using a Mac, was using
⌥⌘-Delete to delete them. Learn something new every day!

[Dudley Brooks]

Thank you for introducing me to a great new term! ;^)

A question: I don't use (Mac) Mail -- I use Mozilla Thunderbird. In TB
I discovered that smart folders (or whatever TB calls them) slow the
program down tremendously, at least when there got to be as many smart
folders as I needed. I got the impression that the smart folders have
to recalculate their search results every time you look at them. So I
wrote filters instead.

Are smart folders in Mail more efficient/quick? Or is the reason that
the TB smart filters had to constantly re-update because I have an IMAP
account, and the same would be true in Mail?

[nospam]

In article <sd4h0v$nsu$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

>
> A question: I don't use (Mac) Mail -- I use Mozilla Thunderbird. In TB
> I discovered that smart folders (or whatever TB calls them) slow the
> program down tremendously, at least when there got to be as many smart
> folders as I needed. I got the impression that the smart folders have
> to recalculate their search results every time you look at them. So I
> wrote filters instead.
>
> Are smart folders in Mail more efficient/quick?

hell yes.

> Or is the reason that
> the TB smart filters had to constantly re-update because I have an IMAP
> account, and the same would be true in Mail?

no, it's because the authors of thunderbird have no idea what they're
doing nor do they care about fixing any of its bugs, which they aren't
even qualified to do even if they wanted to.

[Dudley Brooks]

BTW, I should mention the problem that made me want to delete the
folders in the first place, because I learned something useful about how
to avoid that problem

I had used search criteria like

name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah

When I needed to change a criterion and ctl-clicked on the search and
used Show Search Criteria, it came out as

[ name ] [ matches ] [ blahblah OR tag:blahblah ]

and I couldn't figure out how to get it back to the desired form. So I
wanted to delete the search and simply start over.

But I discovered that the secret is to put parentheses around the search
criteria:

(name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah)

Then Show Search Criteria gives

[ Items matching text ] [ (name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah) ]

and it can easily be modified.

(I hadn't experienced the problem at first, because most of my searches
involved more than one criterion joined by (an implied) AND:

(name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah) (name:foobar OR tag:foobar)

so I was already using parens, of necessity. It was only when I finally
had a *single* OR clause that I did it without parens and experienced
the problem.)

[Dudley Brooks]

OK, thanks.

I was happy to see that Smart Folders in Finder do not slow things down.

But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
new tags.

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.

[Lewis]

In message <sd4iol$4nh$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@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.

--
Today I was... no, wait, that wasn't me.

[Dudley Brooks]

On 7/19/21 12:57 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbr...@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>
>> A question: I don't use (Mac) Mail -- I use Mozilla Thunderbird. In TB
>> I discovered that smart folders (or whatever TB calls them) slow the
>> program down tremendously, at least when there got to be as many smart
>> folders as I needed. I got the impression that the smart folders have
>> to recalculate their search results every time you look at them. So I
>> wrote filters instead.
>>
>> Are smart folders in Mail more efficient/quick? Or is the reason that
>> the TB smart filters had to constantly re-update because I have an IMAP
>> account, and the same would be true in Mail?
>

> I use several smart folders in Apple Mail through several macOS releases
> on multiple Mac models over the years, and have never seen any
> performance issues related to them. They tend to just work for me.

Thanks!

I'm still using Thunderbird instead of Mail, for many reasons ... not
least of which is that I have spend a lot of time configuring it over
the years and would have to spend a lot of time getting Mail similarly
configured (if it's possible).

But in case I ever decide to try something different, it's good to know
that there would not be problems with smart folders in Mail.

[Dudley Brooks]

On 7/19/21 12:53 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbr...@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I should mention the problem that made me want to delete the
>> folders in the first place, because I learned something useful about how
>> to avoid that problem
>>
>> I had used search criteria like
>>
>> name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah
>>
>> When I needed to change a criterion and ctl-clicked on the search and
>> used Show Search Criteria, it came out as
>>
>> [ name ] [ matches ] [ blahblah OR tag:blahblah ]
>>
>> and I couldn't figure out how to get it back to the desired form. So I
>> wanted to delete the search and simply start over.
>>
>> But I discovered that the secret is to put parentheses around the search
>> criteria:
>>
>> (name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah)
>>
>> Then Show Search Criteria gives
>>
>> [ Items matching text ] [ (name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah) ]
>>
>> and it can easily be modified.
>>
>> (I hadn't experienced the problem at first, because most of my searches
>> involved more than one criterion joined by (an implied) AND:
>>
>> (name:blahblah OR tag:blahblah) (name:foobar OR tag:foobar)
>>
>> so I was already using parens, of necessity. It was only when I finally
>> had a *single* OR clause that I did it without parens and experienced
>> the problem.)
>

> That's good info. Thanks for posting it!

You're welcome! Glad to be of (future) help.

[Dudley Brooks]

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.

[nospam]

In article <sdf59s$fv5$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.

[Lewis]

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

>> In message <sd4iol$4nh$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@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?'

[Dudley Brooks]

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]

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.

[nospam]

In article <sdv56t$rc2$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.

[Your Name]

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

[Lewis]

In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@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

[Dudley Brooks]

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]

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

> In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@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.

[nospam]

In article <sdvkkt$8pm$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.

[nospam]

In article <sdvjse$51a$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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?

[Dudley Brooks]

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

> In article <sdvkkt$8pm$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbr...@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.

[nospam]

In article <sdvll7$dh8$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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?

[Dudley Brooks]

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?)

[nospam]

In article <sdvmgk$kjk$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.

[Dudley Brooks]

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

> In article <sdvll7$dh8$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbr...@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.

[nospam]

In article <sdvqql$at0$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.

[Lewis]

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

>> In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1...@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbr...@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.'

[Dudley Brooks]

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

> In article <sdvqql$at0$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks
> <dbr...@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.

Uh ... yes ... that's why I was creating tags on the computer! ;^)

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!), 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.

[nospam]

In article <se00vl$833$1...@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks

<dbr...@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.