Comments on: The Grand Unified Theory of Everything: Search vs. Filing vs. Tagging

By: Janice

Janice — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:57:36 +0000

Do you ever feel like you need to get in touch with the universe/nature and if yes, how do you go about doing so?

By: Generalisierte Lösungen… | work.innovation Blog

Generalisierte Lösungen… | work.innovation Blog — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:13:14 +0000

[...] bei Itzy Sabo Five Jews changed the way we look at things: Moses: The Law is everything [...]

By: everythang

everythang — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:56:35 +0000

I’m convinced that some data is more or less un-classifiable. We need to embrace novel techniques that allow us to find and retrieve the data quickly without having to make excess categories or classifications.

Noguchi Filing System was a great help for me in maintaining a cleaner desk and a cleaner mind. It’s simple but effective http://everythang.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/how-the-noguchi-filing-system-seriously-cleaned-up-my-clutter/

By: Scott Hanselman's Computer Zen - Hanselminutes Podcast 30 - Outlook Add-Ins and Personal Productivity Enhancers

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:57:43 +0000

[...] Search vs. Filing vs. Tagging (hmz) [...]

By: Eddie

Eddie — Tue, 23 May 2006 17:52:47 +0000

I was months behind the power curve on this- I wish I would have found your blog sooner… I wrote somethign similar:
http://my.opera.com/usability/blog/show.dml/237595

By: farlane

farlane — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:10:38 +0000

For 10 years, I used a folder based, clear-the-inbox system for email. I recently switched to Gmail and I have to say that the change has been profound. I can set up filters to apply labels to tag mail as project or subject area based. I can reply to a message with a message that continues or closes the thread and then archive the message without worry. If my correspondent EVER replies to the thread, the entire conversation returns to the inbox, to be reviewed as needed. I can search by tag, sender, subject, etc. using sophisticated search queries. Plus the spam filters are unreal. I know I sound like a Gvangelist (which is curious considering this), but Gmail has completely changed the way I relate to email (for the better in my opinion). LifeHacker's Gmail tag (if you scroll down, there's a hack for Making Outlook thread conversations like Gmail)

By: Len

Len — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:41:24 +0000

This isn’t about Google so much as Microsoft Outlook. The 2003 version has “Search Folders” – I’ve just discovered them.
They’re not real folders – more like virtual folders. You enter a bunch of search criteria and source folders and the search folder always shows you just the messages that match the search criteria.
I’ve created 3 new Search Folders” -one called “Received Today” — it searches the Inbox for items received today – BUT it doesn’t search any sub-folders. This folder shows me ONLY items received today. Once I read or deal with them, I can put them in various sub-folders and they don’t appear in the search folder anymore.
My other Search Folders are Received Yesterday and Sent Today, but the possibilities are endless.

I’m wishing Windows itself had Search Folders.

By: austegard

austegard — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:23:13 +0000

Yeah – tagging is the way to go, and I’m looking forward to the next version of SpeedFiler (if it will include tags). Asit is, if I could only (simply) modify the standard inbox form to include an editable Categories field in the header, I’d be pretty much set. But alas – I ran into this problem http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=249199 and haven’t had the time/patience to get past it. So far I’ve simply added the Categories button to the main Outlook toolbar, which simplifies things somewhat, but I stll have no way to assign categories to an opened message (the Categories tool is not available from inside an opened message). PITA

By: Itzy Sabo

Itzy Sabo — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:05:53 +0000

I agree re: the two camps. However, I built SpeedFiler as more than just a filing aid: what it really helps me do is get rid of a message once I’ve read it, so it does not remain in the inbox and clutter my clarity of vision.

My inbox is for unprocessed items. Something I’ve read is admitted into my system, and by the time it is closed, it must be delegated, filed or turned into a task. It’s been processed: converted from “stuff” into something more meaningful. Allowing it to fall back into the inbox clouds up the system, because it’s the unprocessed “stuff” that weighs on my mind.

By: Solly

Solly — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:40:13 +0000

regarding your blog articles – it is obvious that anyone who wants to accomplish a job of work cannot be reading in depth or heaven forbid responding to scores of emails a day. Unless of course his job is to be a call center of message center of some sort. therefore a tool that simply files away efficiently his emails does not either help him to answer them if they require an answer nor does it help him to read them if he really needs to read them. However having an efficient filing system is a useful tool for many people that like the concept of filing. There are two people in our office that both receive and more importantly need to store a very large quantity of emails – one uses elaborate filing system and the other works like me – they are both super efficient at finding for me past correspondence from customers. So i suppose its really a question of what type of character you have – a ‘power of filing’ tendency or a ‘power of search’ tendency!!! Maybe we need to refer this to Freud, Yung and friends as another way to look deep in to our furthermost recessess!!!!

yours truely

Solly ‘search mad’ Ezekiel

By: Matthew Cornell

Matthew Cornell — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:47:55 +0000

I believe a) the fundamental organization concept for information should be *links* (i.e., relationships) between information items, and b) the classification of the items should be done by *relational* machine learning techniques, using the attributes and structure of the information network.