It doesn't matter which hierarchy you choose but since every keyword (or more general, piece of metadata) is part of an unambiguous hierarchy, whichever hierarchy you choose will be unambiguous. So, if one wants to make the effort to file images into real folders (instead of relying only on metadata, ie, all images go into one folder) using a date-based hierarchy seems like not offering much of an additional benefit whereas any other hierarchy based on user-applied metadata does some actual real benefit.
#Houdahspot full disk access keeps asking software
And recreating a date-based hierarchy is relatively easy as there is no organisational structure to forget or remember (year-month-day-hour-minute-second), no ambiguity in regard to naming or spelling (no need to remember whether it was 'Apr' or 'April' or 'avril'), and a fairly large number of software tools can access and sort by those metadata. They are very unlikely to disappear (you'd to had explicitly export images with metadata stripped or recovering deleted image with a recovery program that only extracts the image data but not any metadata). Now, data-based metadata don't require any work to be applied and thus also cannot be forgotten to be applied. Moreover, if your virtual (metadata-based) hierarchies should (c) collapse, or should the metadata themselves disappear, or are just inconvenient to access (ie, requiring launching the application that the hierarchy was built in), there is still one hierarchy left (and quickly accessible). It also means you are (b) forced to apply at least one attribute and an attribute which is part of a browsable hierarchy. The advantage of real folders is that (a) 'applying metadata' and creating a browsable hierarchy is one step. So what advantage to get you from using real folders? Which is an interesting choice since date-based metadata are always guaranteed to be there without any work needed and thus whether you create a real folder based on the actual dates for which you have images or a smart albums for those is a conceptually similar amount of work. However, you have chosen not to do this but hard-code the keyword hierarchy in regard to date via actual folders.
And if you do this, creating a smart album hierarchy based on date is just one more of those 'maps'. In a sense, you are filing the image in several, separate hierarchies. In other words, to maintain discoverability of what keywords you have actually applied, you need a navigational map (or rather several) of your keywords. And that has to be repeated for each keyword, ie, each keyword is part of a keyword hierarchy (of which there can be dozens, eg, Travel, People, Plants, Animals, etc.). The only way I see is to create a permanent smart album hierarchy that has a smart album 'Travel' and within it smart albums for each country. Most likely our brains just work differently, but how do you get a list of countries you have taken pictures in (or taken trips to) with such a system? Or how do you remember whether you tagged it 'Italy' or 'Italia'? Because while a picture of a family taken in Italy cannot simultaneously live in both the Family and Italy disk folders, it can easily simultaneously have both the "family" and "Italy" tags applied to it. in the program to allow detailed and flexible categorization. I just sort by date on disk and use the tags etc. If you have the categories Italy and Family and Home, and you have a picture of the family taken in Italy, or a picture of the family at home, which folder should you put it in?
Sorting on disk by subject is always tricky.
0 kommentar(er)
