(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.
(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.
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).
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.
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.
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
On 2021-07-18, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
(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.
I believe those are stored in your ~/Library/Saved Searches directory.
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)
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.
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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."
In message <sd2ij4$1jod$1@gioia.aioe.org> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
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.
On 7/19/21 2:30 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
Hmm ... Well, the most obvious and simple way works ... drag them into Trash!
On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 2:30 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
Hmm ... Well, the most obvious and simple way works ... drag them into
Trash!
That's what I was alluding to, yes. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
In message <iljuh4F9orfU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-18, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
(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.
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).
In message <sd3go7$7ss$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
In message <sd2ij4$1jod$1@gioia.aioe.org> Your Name <YourName@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.
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?
On 7/19/21 9:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 2:30 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
On 7/18/21 7:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2021-07-19, Your Name <YourName@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.
Hmm ... Well, the most obvious and simple way works ... drag them into >>> Trash!
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! ;^)
In article <sd4h0v$nsu$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@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.
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?
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.)
On 7/19/21 8:22 AM, Lewis wrote:
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.
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 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.
On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@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!
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
*anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
all.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
*anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag. It takes a tremendously long time for (I assume) the database to get updated, all
the file associations to get made, etc. -- whatever the mechanism is for
the new tag to "take".
And even after it does, if you try to move to another location the file
that you just tagged, you get a "Can't do -- file in use" type of error,
and have to wait even longer until that goes away.
By contrast, new tags in Firefox (the only other place I extensively use tags) are created, and function, instantly. I'm sure Apple's
programmers have good reasons for whatever the inner workings of
creating tags in Finder are ... but it would sure be great if they found
a way to make them get created faster.
On 2021-07-19, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@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.
On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding
new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But
that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
*anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at
all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding >>>> new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But >>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
*anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at >>> all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
actually tag and move the files.
In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding >>>> new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one)
from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But >>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do
*anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar
and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at >>> all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
actually tag and move the files.
I currently have over 3500 *unique* tags (on a *lot* more than 3500
files, of course!)
On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder? Adding >>>>> new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed this. >>>>
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one) >>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown. But >>>>> that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags
(granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait
through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do >>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar >>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the
finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No delay at >>>> all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
actually tag and move the files.
I am telling you that this is the experience that I have had, for
several years now.
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags
(I mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of
course!)
On 2021-07-29 20:41:35 +0000, Dudley Brooks said:
On 7/23/21 5:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sdf59s$fv5$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
On 7/19/21 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sd4iol$4nh$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
But you know what does slow things down *unbearably* in Finder?
Adding
new tags.
I'm not a big user of tags, but I do use them. I have not noticed
this.
Someone once posted that if you remove all tags except one (any one) >>>>>> from the sidebar, then adding new tags does not cause a slowdown.
But
that's not true. Once you have more than a certain number of tags >>>>>> (granted, a large number), when you add a new tag you have to wait >>>>>> through literally several minutes of the beachball before you can do >>>>>> *anything* further in Finder.
Oh no, nothing like that. I just clikced on all the tags in the idebar >>>>> and the list of items populated immediately. I tagged an item in the >>>>> finder and it showed up in the list of that tag immediately. No
delay at
all.
Ah! I'm talking about when you *create* a *new* tag.
No problem there either. I just created "TestTag" and added it to a few
files, moved them to a new folder. No issues. No appreciable delay at
all. It took me longer to figure out how to create a new tag than to
actually tag and move the files.
I am telling you that this is the experience that I have had, for
several years now.
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags
(I mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of
course!)
That's simply a ridiculous amount and you probably should create a
proper filing system of folders.
In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
That would have been relevant information to mention up front.
I suggest that that is a ridiculously excessive number,
and since you can
apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the same results.
I am not going to create 3500 tags to test this,
I don't even use all
the default ones, only red, blue, green, and grey normally.
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 don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
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.
In article <sdvkkt$8pm$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
and since you can
apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the >>> same results.
I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing",
"information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?
that's not what tags were intended for.
Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon
of single-word tags.
no you don't.
I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.
finder is the wrong app.
Guess I was spoiled by how well Firefox uses tags for exactly this! ;^)
If not tags, then what *is* built into MacOS, if anything, that does this?
In article <sdv56t$rc2$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
I currently have over 3500 *unique* tags (on a *lot* more than 3500
files, of course!)
don't do that.
that is *not* how tags are meant to be used.
no wonder you're having problems. you're using something *well* out of
how it was designed to be used.
In article <sdvll7$dh8$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
and since you can
apply MULTIPLE tags, you could certainly used far far less to achieve the >>>>> same results.
I *do* apply multiple tags. So, with "quantum", "physics", "computing", >>>> "information", and "theory", I don't need "quantum physics", "quantum
computing", "quantum information", "quantum theory", "theory of
computing", "information theory", "quantum information theory", etc.,
etc. I assume that's what you're talking about, right?
that's not what tags were intended for.
Then what *were* they intended for?
correct
And what did you mean by "since you can apply MULTIPLE tags, you could
certainly used far far less to achieve the same results.
i didn't say that,
but the statement is true.
you've just taken to an extreme well beyond any design constraints.
Yes, I already do that. But even that way I still need a huge lexicon >>>> of single-word tags.
no you don't.
I don't come to this ng to argue.
nobody is arguing,
people are telling you what you're doing is fundamentally flawed.
I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags. >>>an asset manager, which is designed for that purpose, or spotlight.
See my comment to someone else about why I find Spotlight (or Smart
Folders, or any other variation on search) unsatisfactory, because it
always returns either far too many files or too few, and usually not the
ones I am looking for -- unless I search on tags which I have created to
be exactly what *I* consider the files to be about.
use more effective queries, with a judicious use of tags, not 3500 of
them.
If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them out.
what types of assets do you have?
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.
In article <sdvqql$at0$1@dont-email.me>, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
If you would recommend one or several asset managers, I will check them >>>> out.
what types of assets do you have?
The "assets" that I have are files ... and I want to be able to find
them. (See #3, below.)
obviously they're files.
what *types* of files?
photos? music? videos? text documents (pdf, word, etc.)? other?
each type has a different solution.
it sounds like you have text documents, which needs a different asset
manager than one for photos or videos.
I'm going to say just a few things ... and then I'm not sure there's any
point in continuing this thread. (See #4.)
(1) I have so many files that they have become hard to find ... despite
having a very well organized file structure.
it's going to be a *substantial* amount of effort to manually keep
things organized via the file system with even a fraction of the files
you claim to have.
(The difficulty there is
that, for example, it is hard to come up with a file system structure in
which, for example, Information Theory and Common Practice Period
Harmony are in folders which are close ... but there is, for example, a
paper which applies Information Theory to Common Practice Period
Harmony. Hence my original attempt to use Aliases, to get that file to
show up in both the Information Theory folder and the Harmony folder.)
that's the problem in a nutshell.
managing files directly in the file system using finder or windows
explorer is at best, inefficient and worst, a disaster.
creating aliases and moving them into various folders is just begging
for problems.
asset managers are designed specifically for that task.
the computer is there to do work *for* you.
(2) What I am looking for is something that will let me characterize
files according to my own criteria (including multiple criteria per
file) and then search for them based on those criteria. So that paper
above would have the tags "information theory", "harmony", and
(possibly) "common practice period" -- and tags would be especially
useful, since those terms might not be in the *name* of the file, so I
could search on tags rather than (or in addition to) file names.
by using keywords in an asset manager.
it might be possible to do it with spotlight.
(3) When I google (or duckduckgo, rather) "what are macos tags for",
*everything* that shows up, on the Apple support pages and on user group
pages like macrumors, or on individual pages, says some variation on "to
make files and folders easier to find". (Some even say "to *organize*
[emphasis mine] files and folders" ... but "organize" is ambiguous, so
I'll ignore it.) But *yes*, to make them easier to find! (And many of
those sites say "by searching on tags".) In other words, *exactly* what
I have been trying to use them for!
none of those suggested using thousands of tags.
But, evidently, their programming makes them inadequate for this ... at
least, at a scale which is truly useful for the large number of files I
have, and the large number of categories.
they never intended anyone to use thousands of tags.
it's actually surprising it lets you create anywhere near that many.
(4) It's not helpful to be told that I should be doing this differently,
without be told what I should do instead -- to be told that I am doing
it wrong without being told how to do it right.
spotlight
and/or asset manager.
(5) So if 3500 is excessive, what number is "appropriate"? In theory, I
guess the number of tags (or whatever) needed to *completely*
characterize all my files would be somewhere between log-base-2 of the
number of files and log-base-2 of the number of bits of information
contained in the files -- and that would be *far more* specificity than
needed. So I agree, 3500 is excessive. But trying to figure out
exactly *which* English-language tags (or whatever) to use is not easy!
So, as I acquired new files over the years, and tagged them as seemed
appropriate at the time, that's how many I would up with.
in other words, your system is flawed.
BTW, both in my file system and in my use of tags, I started with a
small number of folders, and later with a small number of tags. But
when the number of files in any of those grew too large, I subdivided
... and then later had to subdivide again ... etc. So the numbers grew
exponentially.
yet another reason why using the file system is a bad idea.
the computer is there to do the work *for* you.
On 7/29/21 2:28 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message <sdv3q6$a3j$1@dont-email.me> Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
Maybe I have a lot more tags than you do. It only started when the
number of tags got extremely large. I currently have over 3500 tags (I
mean 3500 *unique tags* ... on a *lot* more than 3500 files, of course!)
That would have been relevant information to mention up front.
If I had know that it was relevant (i.e that it was unusual!)
I don't know how I would ever locate many of my files with that few tags.
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.
(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!
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?
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:38:00 |
| Calls: | 6,649 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,212 |