[Digikam-devel] [Bug 128533] Why nested tags? What about freeform/freestyle tagging?

[Daniel Bauer]

Am Sonntag, 4. Juni 2006 20:24 schrieb Dragan Espenschied:
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
>
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128533
>
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From drx a-blast org  2006-06-04 20:24 -------
> I strongy encourage you to try out del.icio.us and flickr to see how
> tagging works there. 

Maybe I just don't understand the benefit. As much as I have seen on flickr, 
you are really free in tagging but there's no "organisation" with it. It's 
fast to add a tag but it takes ages to find a picture, if you haven't 
well-organised your tags. And if you have, you'll be back to a hierarchy, and 
the only difference is,. that flickr doesn't support you in that.

> You might also want to look at the Video/Audio editing 
> software "Vegas" by Sony that uses such a tagging system to organize its
> library of sound and video clips.
>
> For digiKam i suggest to use a similiar approach: Place a text input field
> under every picture. 

I wouldn't like that. It makes the "picture" of an album view disturbed, there 
is more space needed, hence less pictures displayed on one "page", hence less 
overview...

> Tags should be entered separated by spaces. If a tag 
> does not exist yet, it will be automatically created.
>
> In a tag view, the user should see all the tags. By clicking on a tag, the
> pictures tagged like this should be visible, with their tags as "links"
> below them. When such a link is clicked, all the pictures with the first
> selected tag and the second selected tag should be visible ... like this
> you can easily refine your view. It is a nested structure on demand.

Sorry if I get you wrong, but I can easily achieve this with the right side 
bar. I just select a keyword (or more) and all pictures not having this one 
disappear from the view. I can choose whatever position in a hierarchie I 
like directly and don't have to first click top-level-keyword, then 
second-level-keyword etc.
>
> Like it is now made, tagging is very similiar to nested folders. 

Yes, and I like that! For me this is one of the great advantages of digiKam.

To explain: For my work I have to separate the pictures from a shooting for 
different uses. Like e.g.:
- Series
	- Magazines
		- Magazine a
			- Series 1
			- Series 2
		- Magazine b
			- Series 1
	- content for sale
		- agency a
			- Series 1
			- Series 2
		- agency b
			- Series 1
	- own website
		- public site
			- Series 1
			- Series 2
		- paysite
			- Series 1
			- Series 2

With the hierarchical keywords I can see every combination I want, very fast: 
all photos used in series, just the ones of Series 1 for Magazine a, all 
Series for Magazines a and b... whatever. 

If I wouldn't have the hierarchie I'd have to give sparate names to all series 
(searching for "Series 1" in this example would not be useful in my case). 
This would lead to hundreds of keywords, making it very complex.

Also it's easy to tag a picture: I simply drag it from the right sidebar to 
the selected pictures. If I wouldn't have the hierarchie, in this example I'd 
have to add 4 keywords to each picture (e.g. "Series", "Magazines", "Magazine 
a", "Series 1"). As it is now this is done automatically, and I really, 
really appreciate this feature.

> What i can 
> actually do is to place a picture into several nested "tag folders". The
> creation of new tags is as complicated as it is to manage hierarchical
> folders ... you have to chose your hierarchy level, select a menu entry
> "new tag" etc ... this is quite clumsy.

I don't see a problem here, I don't know, what is complicated, for me its very 
easy. But I'm an old guy, so maybe I just don't understand the modern forms 
of organisation? ;-)

However, I organize my tags in my brain first, before adding them as tags in 
digiKam. It's very rare that I have to add new keywords, and then its quite 
nice to see at first glance where I have to put it.
>
> Tagging is only useful when the user does not spend most time organizing
> hierarchies, as it is already the case with the hierarchical file system.

You don't have to use the hierarchy, if you don't like it. As much as I 
understand it, it's no must, it's just a possibility. 

If you don't like hierarchies (in other parts of my life I don't like them, 
too :-) ), just add only simple "top-level"-Keywords, no problem: right-click 
on the image, select "new keyword", type it - that's all.
>
> I would recommend to adapt this "popular" tagging approach of flickr,
> del.icio.us etc, not only because it is very practical, but also because it
> is becoming a standard of what users expect when they hear the word
> "tagging". 

We will see, if this will become a standard. I'm not in the astrology 
business, so I can't say... And "popular" definitively is not a synonym 
of "good". 

Please don't take this as a flame - if it sound's rude, it's unintended and 
just because I'm not an native english speaker. Just wanted to throw in my 
point of view of the benefits of a hierarchical keywords structure...

regards

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Switzerland
professional photography: http://www.daniel-bauer.com
special interest site: http://www.bauer-nudes.com