I found this critical dissection by Tiago Forte of the problems with tagging interesting:

https://medium.com/praxis-blog/tagging-is-broken-11e46eb24979

It reflects what I've long felt about tagging, but I must note that most of the comments are push back.

I don't like relying on tagging for organization, but rather as a way to add some meta-data to a note.

Anyway, just thought I'd share with this thoughtful group.

Steve

I wonder if his opinion has changed since he wrote that post. Just about any tool can be misused.

Hi Stephen -

I read this article recently on Medium, and reading again what Tiago Forte wrote my response hasn't changed.

To some extent, what he has done is set up a straw person, relying on on over-statement and excess generalization.

Tags IMO allow for a quick placing of an item, and eliminate the need to come back to it because it may not be in just the right folder. Forte's theoretical justification of his position makes him seem learned and a "guru", but loses site of how different people think, and organize themselves cognitively and externally.
I have many notes and clippings in both Evernote and Pocket. It is far easier for me to work from memory and/or a tag list than use a search or look in folders - tags are more precise and items often are in more than one place, which can be helpful. I am also more likely to see related articles/notes. In the first instance when saving an article or note it is also easier for me to assign tages from memory, and then, if it seems necessary, to review my tag list.
Forte is right that here is a risk of over-tagging, and I do this on occasion, but this risk does not negate the intrinsic value of tagging for me. My experience is that tag names tend to be more specific and helpful than folder names.
One can always use searches, but if you have no tags and many folders, the need increases to use the right search terms. I find that in the first instance, contrary to what Forte says, that tags allow for greater precision and speed, plus having the advantage of easily allowing items to exist in more than one place.
I take issue with Forte's broad generalizations. For example, in the fifth paragraph from the end, he says, "The real problem with tags, and why they not only fail to help, but actually even hurt people's creative self-esteem, is that they give the impression that creating such a system requires a heroic feat of comprehensive planning, followed by years of meticulous cataloging and annotating."
And the last two paragraphs, also are an example of gross over-generalization leading to a conclusion which, I submit, is not justified by the actual experiences of, at least some people, including myself: "The best of the best use organizational systems as a means to a very worthy end: to create rapdid, self-reinforcing learning and feedback loops aimed in the direction of their goals.
"And it all starts by getting rid of tags."
What Forte doesn't realize is that we as a species are a varied lot. We have different ways of self-organizing our thoughts, our organization of information, and the way we act in the world. I like some of Forte's ideas, but in terms of his antipathy to tags, his generalizations and tendency to be overly prescriptive, he seems to be over the top. That may help to sell books and seminars, but in the long run it may well undedmine his authority because, just as in the shoe business, one size does not fit all.
- Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I found this critical dissection by Tiago Forte of the problems with
tagging interesting:

https://medium.com/praxis-blog/tagging-is-broken-11e46eb24979

It reflects what I've long felt about tagging, but I must note that most
of the comments are push back.

I don't like relying on tagging for organization, but rather as a way to
add some meta-data to a note.

Anyway, just thought I'd share with this thoughtful group.

Steve

Here's a use case for tags I think is justification for their existence.

I have a library of documents, bank statements, and notes. The team is going to meet to discuss something that will naturally involve a number of related topics scattered through the library.

Why not create a tag for the meeting, containing the relevant documents? A little searching, a little tagging, and now I might have a better overview than my colleagues. One virtual folder (the tag) with everything I need, without affecting the organization of my library.

That's meeting tag relates items that are not about a single subject. They are about a point in time in the execution of a project.

Tags are versatile.


Daly de Gagne wrote:

Hi Stephen -
"And it all starts by getting rid of tags."
What Forte doesn't realize is that we as a species are a varied lot.
We have different ways of self-organizing our thoughts, our organization
of information, and the way we act in the world. I like some of Forte's
ideas, but in terms of his antipathy to tags, his generalizations and
tendency to be overly prescriptive, he seems to be over the top. That
may help to sell books and seminars, but in the long run it may well
undedmine his authority because, just as in the shoe business, one size
does not fit all.
- Daly

Hi Amontillado -

I agree with your use case for tags.

When I first saw tags way back when, I used them in addition to folders. After some time I realized I was no longer using folders. Tags and sub tags (when an option) did the trick. If a tag became obsolete it could be removed, and there was no reason to rename anything, or to move anything, as there would be with folders, because most items had more than one tag. Contrary to what Tiago Forte wrote, tags for me were faster.

One of the issues that I have with Forte is the high degree of authority with which he surrounds his ideas/concepts/declarations. I became more aware of that when his book The PARA Method: Simplify, Organize, and Master Your Digital Life was released, as well as with some of his related video content. And, as you say, "Tags are versatile."

- Daly

Amontillado wrote:

Here's a use case for tags I think is justification for their existence.

I have a library of documents, bank statements, and notes. The team is
going to meet to discuss something that will naturally involve a number
of related topics scattered through the library.

Why not create a tag for the meeting, containing the relevant documents?
A little searching, a little tagging, and now I might have a better
overview than my colleagues. One virtual folder (the tag) with
everything I need, without affecting the organization of my library.

That's meeting tag relates items that are not about a single subject.
They are about a point in time in the execution of a project.

Tags are versatile.


Daly de Gagne wrote:
Hi Stephen -
> "And it all starts by getting rid of tags."
> What Forte doesn't realize is that we as a species are a varied lot.
>We have different ways of self-organizing our thoughts, our
organization
>of information, and the way we act in the world. I like some of Forte's
>ideas, but in terms of his antipathy to tags, his generalizations and
>tendency to be overly prescriptive, he seems to be over the top. That
>may help to sell books and seminars, but in the long run it may well
>undedmine his authority because, just as in the shoe business, one size
>does not fit all.
> - Daly

Hi Steve -

This topic prompted me to check my electronic copy of Tiago Forte's Building a Second Brain. I discovered something interesting that I had previously overlooked. At the book's end there is a bonus chapter, entitled How to Create a Tagging System that works.
He writes, "Although not essential to get started, tags do provide an extra layer of organization that can be useful as your knowledge collection grows."
There is a download link for the bonus chapter, and it took me to a page asking for my email address, and a button to press, "Yes, send me the Bonus Chapter!"
I find this rather ironic in light of what Forte wrote about tags in the Medium article.
I am curious to know why he would offer a bonus chapter on tagging in a book published in June 2022, and then seemingly do an about face on the merit of tagging so soon afterward.
Now I need to find my proof of purchase from Kindle so I can read the bonus chapter.
- Daly

I’m out of free Medium articles, so I can’t check. Wasn’t that anti-tagging article written in something like 2017?

Seeing the value of tags is not as intuitive as it would seem. I didn’t use them at first, and as of a year or two ago the author of Taking Control of Devonthink didn’t use tags.

Many paths to enlightenment. If I had to choose between tags and groups, I could live without groups or folders. Seems weird, but look at the folks who use The Archive. No folders there, just links and searches.

I think Forte's attitude about tags is expressed in the book:

I don’t recommend using tags as your primary organizational system. It takes far too much energy to apply tags to every single note compared to the ease of searching with keywords or browsing your folders. >However, tags can come in handy in specific situations when the two previous retrieval methods aren’t up to the task, and you want to spontaneously gather, connect, and synthesize groups of notes on the fly

In other words (my understanding of Forte is):
- he opposes using tags as a general organization tool (replacing folders, or some other means). ----I personally agree with this point
- But, he still thinks they can be used effectively for narrower cases: for the PARA system where you can use tags to collect documents that belong to a specific project----again, I agree with this one.

The problem with the medium article is he seems to mostly discourage people to use tags.

I think a number of the tools-for-thought / productivity gurus have been around long enough that their game of changing their advice, or repackaging it under new names and new courses, has gone well past the "best-by" date. They begin to step on their own tails and contradict in later books advice they gave in earlier books.

I've used tags for a long time -- even in the olden days when tags were real pieces of paper stuck into pages on books or print articles. But always only as secondary organizing tools. Hierarchies work best for me. And I'm sure that tags work best for others. Horses for courses.

A downside of tags is the mess that operating systems such as OS X / macOS permit when apps, browsers, etc., create tags automatically. About once a year, I go to Finder and wipe out all the tag crap that has been auto-created behind the scenes.

Actually it was from 2015... something I hadn't noticed at first, because Medium usually doesn't show me articles that old.

Amontillado wrote:

I’m out of free Medium articles, so I can’t check.
Wasn’t that anti-tagging article written in something like 2017?

Seeing the value of tags is not as intuitive as it would seem. I
didn’t use them at first, and as of a year or two ago the author
of Taking Control of Devonthink didn’t use tags.

Many paths to enlightenment. If I had to choose between tags and groups,
I could live without groups or folders. Seems weird, but look at the
folks who use The Archive. No folders there, just links and searches.

Dellu, agree with your last statement. Forte's statement on tag use is very arbitrary. Interestingly, in the bonus chapter dealing with tags, of his Second Brain book he makes a case for using tags, and his concern about them is more nuanced than what he wrote in the medium article. Where I still have an issue is with his concern that tags require so much effort, etc.
While that may be true for him and some others, my experience is that working with a tag list, and the fact items can exist in more than one place, is easier, faster and more precise, than using folders. Forte's experience has obviously been different and that's cool.
At the end of the day day I find using tags
- Daly



Dellu wrote:

I think Forte's attitude about tags is expressed in the book:


>I don’t recommend using tags as your primary organizational
system. It takes far too much energy to apply tags to every single note
compared to the ease of searching with keywords or browsing your
folders. >However, tags can come in handy in specific situations when
the two previous retrieval methods aren’t up to the task, and you
want to spontaneously gather, connect, and synthesize groups of notes on
the fly

In other words (my understanding of Forte is):
- he opposes using tags as a general organization tool (replacing
folders, or some other means). ----I personally agree with this point
- But, he still thinks they can be used effectively for narrower cases:
for the PARA system where you can use tags to collect documents that
belong to a specific project----again, I agree with this one.

The problem with the medium article is he seems to mostly discourage
people to use tags.

Thanks Steve, that's helpful to know that date. I should have thought of looking for the date. Rather than changing his perspective on tags to a more limited view after his Second Brain book came out, Forte was taking a more nuanced approach in that book's bonus chapter on tagging.
- Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Actually it was from 2015... something I hadn't noticed at first,
because Medium usually doesn't show me articles that old.

Amontillado wrote:
I’m out of free Medium articles, so I can’t check.
>Wasn’t that anti-tagging article written in something like 2017?
>
>Seeing the value of tags is not as intuitive as it would seem. I
>didn’t use them at first, and as of a year or two ago the author
>of Taking Control of Devonthink didn’t use tags.
>
>Many paths to enlightenment. If I had to choose between tags and
groups,
>I could live without groups or folders. Seems weird, but look at the
>folks who use The Archive. No folders there, just links and searches.

I think it's good that he's changed his mind – or at least, as you say, modified his stance.

I have plenty of respect for people who are prepared to change their opinions. Much less (close to zero) respect for people who believe their opinions are ALWAYS right and should NEVER be modified (many, many right-wing politicians immediately spring to mind, although many of them are deliberately taking this extreme stance as a political manoeuvre rather than because they actually believe it).

I agree.

MadaboutDana wrote:

I think it's good that he's changed his mind – or at least,
as you say, modified his stance.

I have plenty of respect for people who are prepared to change their
opinions. Much less (close to zero) respect for people who believe their
opinions are ALWAYS right and should NEVER be modified (many, many
right-wing politicians immediately spring to mind, although many of them
are deliberately taking this extreme stance as a political manoeuvre
rather than because they actually believe it).

I agree with you - I could also live without groups or folders.


Amontillado wrote:

I’m out of free Medium articles, so I can’t check.
Wasn’t that anti-tagging article written in something like 2017?

Seeing the value of tags is not as intuitive as it would seem. I
didn’t use them at first, and as of a year or two ago the author
of Taking Control of Devonthink didn’t use tags.

Many paths to enlightenment. If I had to choose between tags and groups,
I could live without groups or folders. Seems weird, but look at the
folks who use The Archive. No folders there, just links and searches.

Interesting discussion !

IMHO, it is not possible to generalize. It all depends on how tags and folders are actually implemented by the app...

In InfoQube:

- An item can be assigned to multiple folders, so that argument for tags goes away (item in a single folder)
- Just about the same operations can be done with tags as with folders (search, filter, etc)

1- The main advantage of folders is that they support rules and script, so they can be used in more automations
2- The main advantages of tags is that they are quicker to create and support inheritance. This can be a game changer for many use cases

Pierre Paul Landry
IQ Designer

I find that folders are also more conducive to structure, at least the way my mind works. Even the "each file goes in only one folder" limitation of a file system can be an advantage, as it forces me to make decisions and maintain consistency.

I think of folders as more 'essential': a cat is a feline and would go in the respective folder.

By contrast, I think of tags more as attributes: the colour of the cat would not warant separate filing, but it could be useful to be able to search for all black animals.

And yes, I have read "Everything is miscellaneous".


Pierre Paul Landry wrote:

1- The main advantage of folders is that they support rules and script,
so they can be used in more automations

This is also my general approach to tags.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

I find that folders are also more conducive to structure, at least the
way my mind works. Even the "each file goes in only one folder"
limitation of a file system can be an advantage, as it forces me to make
decisions and maintain consistency.

I think of folders as more 'essential': a cat is a feline and would go
in the respective folder.

By contrast, I think of tags more as attributes: the colour of the cat
would not warant separate filing, but it could be useful to be able to
search for all black animals.

And yes, I have read "Everything is miscellaneous".


Pierre Paul Landry wrote:
>
>1- The main advantage of folders is that they support rules and script,
>so they can be used in more automations

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

I think of folders as more 'essential': a cat is a feline and would go in the respective folder.

True, but a cat is also a pet, but not all felines are pets. Should cats be classified under felines or pets... that is the question.
The notion of what is "essential" can be different from one person to another, can change with time or with the current information management needs.

Funny that you used cats as an example. It is precisely the example in the IQ doc explaining the use of tag multiple inheritance (Garfield is an animal with the tag Cats. The Cats tag is under both the Feline branch and the Pets branch) !!
https://infoqubeim.com/drupal5/node/4355

There's assumptions about what tags are, but a metadata tag attached to a note (or block) is a quite different beast to a inline #tag.
And folders aren't the only alternative. A variety of Obsidian users are promoting links as an alternative: backlinks produce a list, with added option of creating a MOC note to put them together.

Personally I like inline #tags, and I treat them as adjectives rather than nouns or mutually exclusive categories.

I used to get grumpy about apps that didn't offer folders but only tags, but I have to say Bear's (and now Obsidian's) nested tags have largely changed my mind. As have the clever (Obsidian) plugins that allow you to play with those tags in a wide variety of ways.

Nested tags can be used as folders, but with the added advantage that they essentially preempt the problem of aliases. You don't need aliases for notes if you can simply tag them so they appear in multiple categories.

Having said that, I *also* like folders, simply as a file management tool, because when you've got many thousands of files, it's useful to have some (albeit broad) categories you can file them in. So that if Obsidian (given that the latter uses the file system as its repository) ceases to exist, one still has at least some kind of epistemology to fall back on. The same applies to apps like EagleFiler.

The developer of DEVONthink is fond of telling users "tags are groups" (i.e., folders). In most implementations of tags, they really are.