I am a long-time lurker in these forums and want to sketch out what a
decade of dabbling with different informational tools has led me to. I
am giving you just the gist here, you miss out on many amusing
anecdotes.

1. I use mainstream tools now instead of artisanal software by single
developers on single platforms

I remember writing my master’s thesis in Mellel with o-so-advanced
typography. I bought that because of a glowing, very subjective blog
post that compared writing in Mellel to driving a Ferrari while
using Word was like using public transportation. At the last minute
I had to send it someone to proof-read, converted it to Word and
lost my o-so-special formatting. Years later, I needed to buy an old
Mac Mini to get access to some old Mellel files I could no longer
read on my PC. While Mellel switched to some XML format later where
I could have salvaged at least some text, my files were in an older
binary format.

I will not mention how many months I wasted on tools, like Tinderbox
writing agents, instead of well, doing research on my thesis. That
being said I still enjoy using iA Writer for writing short texts and
look forward to the release of Scrivener 3 for Windows. In both
cases it’s very important to me that they are multi-platform and can
sync across devices.

2. I say no to tools

I try to stick with my mainstream tools, although they may not be
the ultimate best. Instead I try to learn them more deeply. I bought
books on Sublime Text, Windows 10 Inside out and iPhone the missing
Manual and find power user features there you may not stumble upon
in years of regular use.

May I add that I enjoy using my Remarkable Paper Tablet, the only
device I know that nails that paper feel and the ease of use of
paper as well as my adorable Surface Go that finally delivers the
Apple Newton’s promise of pen computing.

I got tired of selling stuff on eBay at a significant loss that I
bought on a whim like an expensive Topre Keyboard because it would
make me a better writer.

3. I say no to the Internet.

That means no more blogs, forums or podcasts. If I ever want to
catch up on my book reading as well as cull the stuff I already have
I need to cut out these time-sinks. Besides, many blog posts are so
superficial and badly written and subjective to the point of being
totally arbitrary. A good book can provide the essence of thousands
of such posts.

4. I embrace the cloud

Yes, the cloud means some loss of control over one’s information.
But the primary risk here is I think hackers companies that data
mine your information for advertising and profiling purposes. For
the moment I think I am save because I use true 2-factor
authentication and a respectable cloud provider. I use a paid-for
service instead of a “free” service. For a long-term perspective I
try not to rely on cloud services that may be canceled on a whim. If
I don’t think this service/company will be around in 10 years I
don’t use it. What I gain is multi-device sync which I increasingly
rely on. I no longer want my files locked down to a single device
and then lost.

5. I try to learn processes instead, let’s call them informational
habits

I read “The Science of Managing our Digital Stuff” by Bergman as
well as “Keeping Found Things Found” and find so many insights I may
elaborate on in a future post. For the moment I will list a few.

Studies show that people have a tendency to over-keep information of
questionable value. Keeping decisions are often delayed forever.
This low-quality information makes relevant information hard to
find.

And to add my personal note here: _none_ of the tools you read about in
this forum will solve this problem of over-keep for you.

Information has a life-cycle. Being aware of this life-cycle of gather-keep-use-discard helps me get rid of obsolete information:

- Am I still interested in knowing/doing/having this?
- Do I know or understand this already?
- Is a better fresher version of this information likely to come into
my life soon?
- If I will use read do this will I do it before it goes out of date?
- Can I deal with any regret I might have if I throw it away?

To be continued…

Firstly, welcome out from the woodwork. Glad you decided to post your thoughts.

I can't say I agree with it all (or any of it) but it's an interesting point of view. Even though you have a mainstream-only philosophy it looks like make room for niche approaches (semi-private cloud, IAWriter, etc.).

One should never buy software just because some blogger or forum (including this forum) suggested it. If a blogger makes its money from link revenue (as do most of the Mac bloggers) then whatever they say is suspect. Doesn't mean the blogger or forum opinion is wrong -- just means we should do the homework before buying.

I have no problem with Tinderbox or other "non-mainstream" software. It's a terrific application -- and I've spent years learning it and building value from it. I wouldn't be as harsh as the OP in rejecting it. However, I suspect that well over half of those who buy it have no business using it -- because they have no clue what they need *any* software for.

Paul Korm wrote:

However, I suspect that well over half of those who buy it have no
business using it -- because they have no clue what they need *any*
software for.

Or, coming to the realization that the time spent to configure and tweak the tool doesn't worth it. I have been in conflict with myself for a long time with regard to TB because: in one way, I can see how the tool solves my problems, on the other, I realize that I spend more time tinkering with it than I solve my problems with it. The technical part of TB always comes on my way of accomplishing sth with it.

Pixelpunker wrote:

2) Say no to Internet
3) embrace the cloud

If you are going to rely on the cloud for your backup, you cannot say no to the Internet.

I also like the idea of saying no to tools. But, I am doubting your integrity because you are actually adopting many quirky tools. your use of Remarkable Paper Tablet especially strange because this tool sounds like the Mellele tool you had bad experiences with. I am questioning if you are genuinely learning from your past mistakes (sorry for being rude) because I feel like Remarkable Paper Tablet is the same lockdown as the Mellel. The annotations made with Remarkable are not readable by the standard pdf reading tools such as Acrobat. You are more likely to be stuck with it as you had been with Mellel, in the long run.

I also disagree on your inclination towards books. I personally find books to contain more junk (filler stuff) than blog posts.
The point on the blogs is that you have to know where to look.

I always avoid posts by corporate bodies that attempt to sell ads ( use chrome addon to block posts from Cnet and the like crappy sources). Blog posts by private enthusiasts are actually much succinct and more valuable than many of the books. I have seen many of these short blog posts grew to books; often with filler stuff and some more common senses added on it to fill the pages.

Just like with books, blogs can be good and bad. And nowadays, when *anyone* can self-publish a book, the line between a book and a blog is increasingly thin. I wouldn't put much faith in most self-published books. While the internet has saved many of us hours and hours of research time by making so much information readily available, it has forced us to use those hours instead to verify and validate all that easy-to-acquire online research! Progress...

As for tools: whatever works. I look with equal disdain on the Microsoft, Apple, et. al., cheerleaders as I do those "too cool" to use anything but home-brewed tools. The people who piously proclaim "I'd NEVER use Word!" or "I'd NEVER put my stuff in the cloud" (as if their "stuff" is being sought by legions of spies and provocateurs) are good for a laugh, if little else.

I agree with some of what you say. The process is more important than the tools, and there's another step down that path. The product is all that matters.

Mainstream tools are fine if they do the job. If they don't, pitch 'em.

Just guessing, Wordstar might have been a hot office item at the time you were using Mellel. Wordstar was bigger than Word in its day, and there is nothing presently sold that will open Wordstar files on the market today.

Docx and rtf are both (probably) safe for archival, but both are more complex than necessary to carry your message. I realize in the case of your early work Ol' Paint has already gone up in flames with the barn, but it's not a bad practice to export to plain text when you set something aside.

On the other hand, even papyrus and dry desert caves aren't perfect. Media deteriorates, and if you don't refresh your backups on new media you will eventually lose your data. Writable CDs and DVDs will go unreadable with a relatively short exposure to direct sunlight. I can't remember the time frame, but it seems like it was a week or two when I tried it.

But I appreciate what you say about old Mellel files. In fact, I wish I'd used Mellel long, long ago and had a bunch of unreadable files.

I'd like to buy a Mac Mini, but my wife's an elementary school teacher. It's true about the eyes in the back of the head. I don't get away with nuttin', and if I can't come up with an airtight excuse I'll probably never get a Mini.

Sure would be nice, though. I could see one in the center console of my pickup truck with an HDMI display in front of one of the back seats. A writing studio with four wheel drive, mmmm....

Delu:

Pixelpunker wrote:

\>2) Say no to Internet\
\>3) embrace the cloud

If you are going to rely on the cloud for your backup, you cannot say
no to the Internet.

If I am using a streaming service with my personal hifi or a cloud
backup service I'm technically using the internet. What I meant to say
was I say no to the web, the blogosphere, online newspapers and social
media. At least for a time.

Delu: The annotations made with Remarkable are not readable by the
standard pdf reading tools such as Acrobat.

That's new and bad news for me. I thought the Remarkable was saving my
annotations as part of the PDF in a standard format, although I never
tried it.

Delu: I also like the idea of saying no to tools. But, I am doubting
your integrity because you are actually adopting many quirky tools.

I object to your wording here but I assume for the sake of our argument,
you meant to say I am inconsistent. Paragraph 5 should have read "I say
no to NEW tools". I certainly like shiny new tools and gadgets. Which
has led me over time to a multitude of files now locked away in
inaccessible formats. But I'm starting to resist my urges: I did NOT buy
a Hemmingway freewrite, a Blackberry 10 device, Gemini Linux PDA oder
Android-based Blackberry although I really thought about it a lot.

Tightbeam: I wouldn't put much faith in most self-published books.

I concur. The floodgates to low-quality filler have been opened. It's so
horrible that the stature of the book itself as a cultural icon is at
risk. Amazon is partly to blame here.

Tightbeam: I look with equal disdain on the Microsoft, Apple, et. al.,
cheerleaders as I do those "too cool" to use anything but home-brewed
tools.

Certainly a pragmatic stance is best. My issue with home-brewn tools was
the lockdown in obscure formats. But that also applies to now defunct
formats by then big companies like the stuff on my Symbian phones.
Plaintext to me is way too limited as a solution.

Amontillado: On the other hand, even papyrus and dry desert caves
aren't perfect.

Sure, but the timeframe of this digital stuff is a joke. I can't even
read 10-year-old files.

Thank you for actively joining this forum's discussions. I appreciate what you've shared with us about your own revelations in doing information work.

I would like to know your definition of "mainstream." It seems to me, on a PC, that means you're using Microsoft products exclusively. If not, then your definition of mainstream is looser than mine.

I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying on Microsoft.

Your overall point that it is more productive to concentrate on processes than tools is certainly valid in my view. But you must realize that for many people on this forum part of the enjoyment of doing this kind of work is exploring new tools. I admire the small developers who have a fresh vision and put that vision into an app that may take years to create. I like to support them when I can. And sometimes a "mainstream" app emerges from this process (think Scrivener).

Thanks again!

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying on
Microsoft.

How come? Are you also uncomfortable relying on Apple? the Scrivener folks? any home-brew, cottage developer?

I didn't say I don't use Microsoft products. I am forced to. I am saying I don't want to rely on them exclusively. Microsoft's aim is clearly to herd everyone into their Office 365 annual subscription system. When a company is that big, it usually means the customers have to adapt to the changes based on the company's needs, and not the other way around. Small developers work to satisfy the needs of the customer.

I don't use Apple's Pages or Numbers. You've got to trust somebody's hardware and operating system.

If you read my whole post you'd see that I addressed small developers and Scrivener.

tightbeam wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying
on
>Microsoft.

How come? Are you also uncomfortable relying on Apple? the Scrivener
folks? any home-brew, cottage developer?

Respectfully, I think some of the depth of your message may get lost in the abruptness of your opening statements. Let me see if I can dig deeper.

1. When I am truly focused on the process, I do not care about the _source_ of the tool, I care about whether it is suitable to do the job. You seem to accept a platform agnostic approach yet also seem to fuss loudly against single-developer software. What I think that you are saying is that you avoid software that has a locked-in or dead-end approach in its design. I agree with this philosophy.

2. Well. As an abrupt counter ... I guess that means we should drop our use of paper and pencil or clay tablet and stylus or cave wall and chalk. But then you turn around and praise tools that you _do_ use. What I think you are saying is that you avoid using tools for their own sake. I agree with this philosophy.

3. You are saying "Internet" to mean only blogs, forums, and podcasts. The internet has a wealth of other resources that are worthy of solid praise.

4. You embrace it, but then you define caveats to your "embrace". This sounds more like a "I date anyone and everyone ... but they must have blue eyes" kind of statement. What I think that you are saying is that you use the cloud to the best of its potential in your work. I agree with this philosophy.

5. We all can stand a reminder to continue our good habits for life-long learning.

I think there are some great points here. And if I weren't an inveterate CRIMPer, I would embrace your philosophy wholeheartedly!

On the other hand, the term "mainstream" is a problematic one (as a few forum members have already pointed out). As a lurker, you've no doubt spotted that many of us incline - possibly increasingly? I haven't done an objective analysis of forum trends, but anecdotally, it seems to me that a certain trend is apparent - to apps that hold data in multi-platform or totally open formats such as plain text (in which I include various flavours of Markdown) or HTML.

These seem to me to represent a good definition of "mainstream", and perhaps a better one than talking about mainstream apps. Using long-lived, mainstream formats like .txt and .htm(l) is a good way to avoid the lock-in you so accurately describe (ah, I have a nice collection of gadgets, just as you do: all I can do nowadays is get them out, gaze fondly but sadly upon them - my old Psion 5mx's (I blush to admit I have 2, including the Ericsson variant); my AlphaSmart Dana; my Compaq and Toshiba WinCE devices; my LG Phenom, etc. etc. etc. - and then put them away again). Sad really. But jolly good fun at the time.

Of course many of those devices are theoretically still usable, precisely because they ALL support text and HTML (although things like UTF8 support etc. can make even these basics slightly less than totally predictable). And this, I suggest, is where yer average CRIMPer has room for a certain amount of manoeuvre. I love experimenting with tools that use these basic formats well - my recent discovery of Zettlr being a case in point. Which brings me to your second, interesting point:

It's best to spend time familiarising yourself with EVERYTHING your "mainstream" tools can do, rather than wasting said time playing around with other apps.

Really can't argue with that. You've got me bang to rights, guv'nor. Knowing your mainstream tools in depth is, of course, one of the secrets of making best use of them. But here's a thought:

The ongoing development of mainstream tools can tend to the sluggish as complacent developers cease to be quite as inventive, quite as imaginative, as they were originally, precisely because they KNOW their tools have made it into the mainstream, and are therefore irreplaceably established in the marketplace. Hence the seductive pleasure of CRIMPing: new, small, independent developers are often so exciting! Have such amazing new ideas! Do precisely the things you wish the Big Boys had done years ago! Think up totally new ways of handling/analysing/manipulating information! Look at SheetPlanner, for example - full of exciting potential! Not doing anything particularly novel on one level, but bringing together a whole raft of features in a way nobody else has done to date. Watching apps like this unexpectedly succeed in the marketplace, in the process challenging or even displacing the "mainstream" apps one tends to use either from force of habit, or because one has no option (e.g. Microsoft Office, Adobe Suite), is an uplifting experience. Look at the amazing success of Affinity, for instance - displacing Adobe's well-established empire! Wow!

So while I respect your philosophy, I enjoy experimenting with data management approaches far too much to forego the pleasures of CRIMPing. But thank you very much for sharing!

I did read your whole post, and while I also like to "fool around" with the software - much of it very good software - that independent developers create, I would not "rely" upon that software, as the chances of it being abandoned are quite a bit higher than Microsoft suddenly throwing in the towel. I believe an annual subscription to Office 365 costs $70/year, or $5.84 per month. If that cost is too onerous, then it's time to put up a lemonade stand and earn a few extra bucks.

"Small developers work to satisfy the needs of the customer."

Well, no. I imagine most customers come to small developers because they see that the developer already has created software suitable for their needs. It's true that small developers give the appearance of being responsive to customer input - mostly because they have few enough customers that it's possible to do so - but typically their pace of development is glacial, lacking as they do sufficient time, money, and infrastructure. How long, for example, has the new version of MyInfo been under development? Even Workflowy, with its largish customer base, went through an Ice Age of sorts recently, woken not by their grand concern for the needs of customers but rather the encroachment of Dynalist.

You probably meant to say, "I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying on Microsoft[, exclusively], and with that I agree. I don't think anyone can successfully argue, however, that Microsoft (or Apple or Google) isn't *reliable* in terms of its ability to stay in the market.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I didn't say I don't use Microsoft products. I am forced to. I am saying
I don't want to rely on them exclusively. Microsoft's aim is clearly to
herd everyone into their Office 365 annual subscription system. When a
company is that big, it usually means the customers have to adapt to the
changes based on the company's needs, and not the other way around.
Small developers work to satisfy the needs of the customer.

I don't use Apple's Pages or Numbers. You've got to trust somebody's
hardware and operating system.

If you read my whole post you'd see that I addressed small developers
and Scrivener.

tightbeam wrote:
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>>I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying
>on
>>Microsoft.
>
>How come? Are you also uncomfortable relying on Apple? the Scrivener
>folks? any home-brew, cottage developer?
>
>
>

Pixelpunker wrote:

> Amontillado: On the other hand, even papyrus and dry desert caves
> aren't perfect.

Sure, but the timeframe of this digital stuff is a joke. I can't even
read 10-year-old files.

Nor can one always read 10 year old newsprint. It's not an archival medium. Neither are old word processor files good candidates for forever.

On the other hand, 40 year old files are perfectly readable with anything, if they are plain text files.

tightbeam wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>I'm not criticizing that choice, but I would be uncomfortable relying
on
>Microsoft.

How come? Are you also uncomfortable relying on Apple? the Scrivener
folks? any home-brew, cottage developer?

Apple Pages' native files are in a proprietary, closed format. That detracts from the value of Pages, but who cares? You can export to plain text.

Scrivener stores everything you write in individual files, all either plain text or RTF, and you can export to plain text. Or epub, that's just plain text, too. Epub files, like docx files, are just zip archives. Unzip an epub and you'll find xhtml or html files carrying the payload (plain text), and CSS files carrying the formatting.

Ulysses stores plain text files, but they are a little hard to find. That would bug me, but it's ok. It will export to plain text and other formats.

There are trivial differences in plain text "format" files. There's not really a format, it's just a series of characters, but there is inconsistency if you look really close.

Unix set a standard for text files where line endings were done with a linefeed character, called a newline in Unix circles. Microsoft decided on carriage return/line feed pairs at the ends of lines, and a (unenforced) control-Z at the end of files. Apple went, initially, with just carriage returns for line endings. Apple has since mended its ways.

That's inconsistent, but hardly a big deal. The Unix (or Mac) tr command (transliterate) will convert files whichever way you want.

More important, though, is to keep refreshing your archive media. Not only would Apple II diskettes likely be long gone from deterioration and constant magnetic influence, it would be a chore to find a working Apple II to read them on.

We know plain text ASCII will be around for a long, long time, because since the dawn of BNF all program source code has been plain text ASCII. Vi and emacs are not going away, whether they work well for you or not.

So, can you read 10 year old files? Of course. Your mileage varies according to how well you supported your future self, 10 years ago. Or 40 years ago.

As far as changing software like undershirts, I'm somewhat guilty. When I find something that really works for me, I stick with it. I wouldn't have de-installed Ulysses, but I got into a snit over subscriptions. For me, Ulysses works so well I made my peace with their subscription model.

Stephen Zeoli: I would like to know your definition of "mainstream."
It seems to me, on a PC, that means you're using Microsoft products
exclusively. If not, then your definition of mainstream is looser than
mine.

I am thinking about the usual, Office, Sharepoint, Exchange, but also
Lotus/IBM Notes would fit the bill.

J J Weimer: Respectfully, I think some of the depth of your message
may get lost in the abruptness of your opening statements.

I certainly don't want to rile anyone up over their use of finely
crafted software tools made by passionate developers. It is great news
for example that after years of monopoly blandness in the last ten years
serious alternatives to Microsoft Word have sprung up. I also get that
with all the customizing and adaptation of one's personal workflow one
may get deeply attached to a particular program or platform.

So let me postpone the discussion about the merits of indie programs vs
mainstream programs and talk about the **process** of personal
information management again:

First, what is my objective?

I am talking specifically about personal information management and a
finely curated collection of information rather than a large database
that can only be mined with computer tools.

What I have right now is a hard drive that degenerated into some sort of
black hole. I only collect and rely on search to find anything. I
postpone organizing, pruning and processing the information I've
amassed. I also won't just dump it all because time and time again if
found nuggets of gold in there.

Did you know that Michael Jackson had a full-time archivist that would
categorize, label and archive everything he wrote or recorded? Since I
don't have the funds for a personal librarian would a tool help that
could organize the information for me?

And even if that tool could at least categorize my information would
that solve the problem of assessing the personal value of each piece of
information? Would it prompt me if the information is time-sensitive?

What method of organization will I use? Put it in a traditional folder
hierarchy? Use aliases so that items can live under multiple headings?
How do I name the headings? Do I tag items (there's the problem of
synonyms or inconsistent use of tags). Do I use one- or two-way
hyperlinks to make it into a web of associative connections?

Whittaker and Bergman tell me that, surprisingly in light of all the
advanced approaches, the traditional folder or outliner hierarchy is
best and they have some empirical data to back that up. The explanation
for this is that a fixed folder hierarchy leads to retrieval by
locational cues and does not tax the verbal system. It's sort of like
why the method of loci works as a mnemonic aid. They also determined the
optimal number of items per folder and hierarchy depth that would
optimize the search time by using linear regression:

"The model suggests an optimization for the trade-off between folder
size and depth. ... Each additional folder step increases retrieval
time by 2.235 seconds and each new information item added to a folder
increases retrieval time by 0.106 seconds. The trade-off between depth
and size is therefore 2.235/0.106 = 21,0849 21.09 ... We can recommend
that users avoid storing more than twenty-one information items per
folder, they should create an additional level of subfolders
instead."

As far as naming folders goes everything that helps you remember is
enough, no taxonomy required. This is very different to a public
information space that is shared by many users.

So I will still have to do the digging manually, including trying to
open and convert old file formats. (I noticed that I then loose the
original timestamps, but I want the date preserved I last edited a
document, not the date I converted it to a new format.)

I once stumbled upon in a German book about time management from 1983 on
a checklist for perfect time management. This is Point 4 (my
translation):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I have a system of notes that gives me at any time an overview of all
| my thoughts, plans, commitments and tasks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I want to achieve.

Next up in my reading list: "The Organized Mind"

That's pretty fascinating -- you've encouraged me to read Whittaker and Bergman's book. I'm curious if they looked at any spatial alternatives (like hierarchical folders in a mind map configuration), given that locational cues seem to be important?

--Chris

Pixelpunker wrote:

Whittaker and Bergman tell me that, surprisingly in light of all the
advanced approaches, the traditional folder or outliner hierarchy is
best and they have some empirical data to back that up. The explanation
for this is that a fixed folder hierarchy leads to retrieval by
locational cues and does not tax the verbal system. It's sort of like
why the method of loci works as a mnemonic aid. They also determined the
optimal number of items per folder and hierarchy depth that would
optimize the search time by using linear regression...

@Pixelpunker
Thanks for your thoughts, though I disagree with some.
And thanks for broadening my horizon by mentioning the 3 books. Just ordered 2 of them.

That's an admirable objective. The mania of "productivity" and "organization" seems to be a very twenty-teens preoccupation and perhaps motivates a lot of the software industry (other than games and shopping). For me, as my own shelf life diminishes I am increasingly less interested in finding all my thoughts and plans, etc., and "productivity" bores me.

Pixelpunker wrote:

I once stumbled upon in a German book about time management from 1983 on
a checklist for perfect time management. This is Point 4 (my
translation):


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I have a system of notes that gives me at any time an overview of all
| my thoughts, plans, commitments and tasks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I want to achieve.

Pixelpunker wrote:

I once stumbled upon in a German book about time management from 1983 on
a checklist for perfect time management.

And its title is?

I certainly don’t want to rile anyone up over their use of finely

crafted software tools made by passionate developers.

I was just trying to see past what seemed be conflicting statements. No riling up was understood nor intended.

I appreciate that you are presenting an interesting treatise.

I wonder if this is related to the doorway effect, which has a profound effect on my focus - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-walking-through-doorway-makes-you-forget/

The Brain seemed to trigger doorway effect responses. When I clicked on a thought and it became the center of attention, I had a good sense of what I was thinking when I originally added it.

Chris Thompson wrote:

That's pretty fascinating -- you've encouraged me to read Whittaker and
Bergman's book. I'm curious if they looked at any spatial alternatives
(like hierarchical folders in a mind map configuration), given that
locational cues seem to be important?

--Chris

Pixelpunker wrote:
>
>Whittaker and Bergman tell me that, surprisingly in light of all the
>advanced approaches, the traditional folder or outliner hierarchy is
>best and they have some empirical data to back that up. The explanation
>for this is that a fixed folder hierarchy leads to retrieval by
>locational cues and does not tax the verbal system. It's sort of like
>why the method of loci works as a mnemonic aid. They also determined
the
>optimal number of items per folder and hierarchy depth that would
>optimize the search time by using linear regression...

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Pixelpunker wrote:
>I once stumbled upon in a German book about time management from 1983
on
>a checklist for perfect time management.

And its title is?

The book title was „Keine Zeit?“ by Regula Schräder-Naef. Publisher was Beltz.

PP's citations:

1) Yeah, when it's in a book, it becomes the Bible; if in a forum, it'd be crap. What they say a), I said it here years ago (its lack of "retrieval helped by spatial positioning" (both by folder/subfolder position and then "manual" order within its subfolder) was even my argument against tagging, for any info element that's deemed to become useful within the context of other such elements; I differentiated from "unbound" elements where tagging is perfect for multiple clustering by various criteria of various kinds (collections of customers, media...) ; you could speak of grouping vs clustering or of signed grouping vs unsigned grouping, (real) grouping vs (just) bunching, or similar; the real conceptional difference laying just in the (if optimized) presentation of the possible filing targets (cf. flat storage of "hierarchies" / in fact graphs in pseudo-tree form, in relational db's and in the file system: in the latter, it's just the MFT which then "puts it all together" into the form you see in your file manager, as do the relevant crosstables plus the necessary processing code in the db).

And what they say b) in that citation, it's just crap, the sort of pseudo-scientific crap we're flooded with nowadays; of course it all depends on the respective nature of data; sets of more than 21 sibling element/item (which can be containers/"branches" or "leaves") are perfectly acceptable or even advisable if creation of further hierarchisation is unnatural: Whenever you ask yourself in which of the sub-folders you may have put some element, you'll have done it wrong. Not speaking of positional disambiguation here (car assurance in cars or, correct, in assurances), which is to be resolved by container cloning. Lots of details here in this forum, and in the comments for the last UR offer on bits just days ago, but I suppose that while inexact info in the right place is fine, exact info in the wrong place is unacceptable, so be it. Btw, larger - and even minor - sets of siblings can be divided into subgroups by divider lines, cf. bookmarks in FF or elsewhere; I spoke about this here within the same "tagging vs hierarchy" context. Also, and most importantly, further hierarchisation vs just listing as "siblings" is function of retrieval needs, incl. frequency of access of that sub folder, just as is manual sort vs alphanumeric sort; and last but not least - I think I wrote about that detail here, too: Some elements in such (even "long") lists should be able to bear some, 1, 2, 3 perhaps, sub-items, automatically "expanded", as to be technically parents of respective "subfolders", but visually and conceptually, those items/siblings would just contain some sub-siblings. It's all about the individual nature, and the individual needs - just like the demand for individual meta data ("attributes") sets within different folders, in the usual PIM db's.

2) This is an illegitimate reduction of what's needed; of course, you'd also need access to your knowledge base, and which the citation misses. But then, the main point within the OP's post does not seem to have been grasped by any commentator: the perishable nature of most info, this deterioration taking place at totally different speeds for different info, even within the same context. And of course, wading thru all this perished, worse, literally corrupted, info, is both very time consuming, and constitutes, more or less, hindrances for mobile access - not speaking of the possible consequences of relying on outdated info.

The big irony here being that the necessary amount of (real, not simili-) AI will only be available from the Big5 - so the real solution to the real problems will only come from an even much more restricted set of suppliers than the OP had in mind, and, of course, only if you give them total reading access to your data repository. Why then maintain your own data stock? Well, in order for them to be able to weight new info to be sent to you, from your alleged needs derived from the analysis of your old data (just like FB does, and google does if you don't delete all your web activity every day)... and of course to preserve at least a little - and percentage-wise ever-receding - amount of - dying - genuine data into a time where almost all new data you could get, will be heavily biased.

OP is right in their remark that at the end of the day, it's about core data for decision-making, not about growing data collections, and we're all aware of the unsolved problem "storing items into the right place(s) / append all (!) the right / possible key words (tags) to the item VS rely on search only, and how much paid staff time this will cost"

(the latter paradigm seemingly working so well with OL since there it's almost exclusively about given/known-by-name customers, suppliers, press, faculties (for academics), etc. and then by reverse chronology (and just here and there about some goods or ideas within text / non-meta-data), and from that ideal search situation, lunatics then infer the perfect applicability of the search-only paradigm onto everything),

while - not mentioned by OP - even the decision IF some info is pertinent today OR will be someday within the future, bears some quite incredible cost - both for thinking about it and then for possible discarding - in itself, especially if that info, deemed marginal today, will become crucial tomorrow... AND will not be available then anymore, either by being hidden, or worse, by having been replaced by false information.

Anybody doing extensive web bookmarking instead of - quick - downloading will know what I'm speaking of, and that's not even mentioning the impending problem that (those of) the Big5 providing the AI will - inevitably - actively care what info (correct, wrong or, most machiavellian, seemingly correct and complete, but, unfortunately, bearing some critical vices and omissions) they deem suitable for you and your kind.

(And yes, I know about half-baked pseudo-AI tries to help with filing, and yes, this could be done much better than at this point in time; also, I said this here before, when in any doubt, download but don't (deep-) file yet: have it dormant; and perhaps even let those things in higher-up placed inboxes even when possibbly needed: combine visual (skimming) and electronic search of deep-filed-and-ordered info AND of less-deep-filed-and-unordered info, being ready to do some additional, precision-filing for items in the latter group upon those semi-directional search results.)

(Did you know that e.g. imdb (incl. Pro and other sidecars) is amazon? (Most of you certainly did not. And as an aside, Bertelsmann is Europe's biggest publisher AND Europe's biggest censor - yes, in Europe censorship has become a viable industry, too...) And that's only the beginning: In the future, any industry will depend on crucial info above every other means, and info will not be sold anymore, but used inhouse by today's "info", tomorrow's sell-it-all merchants. Btw, Apple isn't one of them, so you could call'em the Big4, or then, let's face it, it's all about amazon-google.)

I don't pretend to understand 22111's posting -- but this caught my eye. While looking back over the decades I would have liked to have preserved the "core data for [my professional and personal] decision-making" but in probably 95% of the cases I had no idea what decisions I would make in the future and therefore no idea of what "core data" I might need a year, two, five or ten years thence.

Storage is cheap. Search is pretty good on most platforms (except iOS). So in the digital world I'm unconcerned where I stuff things -- I almost always find what I needed. In the analog world if I haven't used the thing in 6 months, it's trash.

22111 wrote:

OP is right in their remark that at the end of the day, it's about core
data for decision-making, not about growing data collections, and we're
all aware of the unsolved problem "storing items into the right place(s)
/ append all (!) the right / possible key words (tags) to the item VS
rely on search only, and how much paid staff time this will cost"

Storage is cheap. Search is pretty good on most platforms (except iOS).
So in the digital world I'm unconcerned where I stuff things -- I
almost always find what I needed. In the analog world if I haven't used
the thing in 6 months, it's trash.

I agree with this point.

The idea that information or data gets outdated seems exaggerated. For me, it is not unusual for an academic to cite a work from Ancient Greek, to the 18th or 19th-century analysis of some fact. Bertrand Russell 1905 paper is one of the most cited papers in 2018.

It is very hard to say if any published work can be outdated at all. That sounds so at least in my field (linguistics) because almost every published paper contains some linguistic fact that you can potentially use in your analysis.

I personally don't attempt to organize or read every PDF article. But, I use all of them as my database to find what I am looking for. I never throw away any PDF file unless it is a duplicate. So far, I have accrued 14GB of them. It is just a local database I constantly search when I need sth.