Why, then, organize when you can search?

[AlexanderChow]

Just a fool question.(But David said, it never hurts to ask the "why") so, Why Organize When You Can Search? It can be your notes, stuff in your computer, etc. Just Why? any benefits? and to a bigger picture, why you should organize your life? by categorizing things to be done.

[kkuja]

For me the answer is: to know there is nothing requiring action buried somewhere.

[Myriam]

For me the answer is: to know there is nothing requiring action buried somewhere.

I think Alexander meant reference material, material you need/want to keep but with no action attached to it. And it's a good qestion. I know people who don't organise reference material in foldes and subfolders, just relying on a search to find what they need.

I personally like to have some kind of structure. I'm a consultant, and I do like to have my files ordered by client or by type of activity. I don't think a search would be faster for me than clicking the client folder to find a specific document. Anyway, it would make me feel uncomfortable, so I wouldn't trust that system. But it might work for other people...

Myriam

[Oogiem]

Why Organize When You Can Search? It can be your notes, stuff in your computer, etc. Just Why? any benefits? and to a bigger picture, why you should organize your life? by categorizing things to be done.

Because searching takes far too much time, uses up way too much energy and is totally frustrating.

Sure, searching on a computer within computer files may work most of the time but search is totally worthless for searching paper reference material. My reference filing system for paper is 3 four drawer file cabinets plus 2 two drawer cabinets. If it wasn't organized I'd spend hours searching for stuff when I needed it. As it is I can usually lay my hands on the folder or paper I want within a minute or two. Occasionally I have to search within a folder, I have one set that is about 6 inches of papers, but I made a quick index for that folder so I know roughly where in the stack to go to find the item I need.

Organizing also gives you a chance to see whether the item needs to be kept at all and if there are any buried action items or projects within that item.

Lastly, just because *you* can search and find stuff within your stacks doesn't mean someone else can. If all of your tasks and action items had to be taken over and done by someone else with no warning would they have any clue how to pick up the pieces and carry on?

Organizing in some relatively standard way is one step to enabling someone else to step into your shoes on an emergency basis if required. Another is cheat sheets or checklists of major tasks. Even if you don't normally use them having them documented is critical.

[Suelin23]

Because if your stuff is properly organised then browsing is always faster than searching.

[Gardener]

Just a fool question.(But David said, it never hurts to ask the "why") so, Why Organize When You Can Search? It can be your notes, stuff in your computer, etc. Just Why? any benefits? and to a bigger picture, why you should organize your life? by categorizing things to be done.

Well, I don't organize my email in the sense of dragging mails to folders. Email is inherently organized in several ways because it's tagged and searchable by sender, recipient, date, and so on. However, when I have an email that leads to a GTD action, I include, in the action, enough information to find the email. So that is, I suppose, organization by reference and tagging, instead of organization by filing.

I could see doing this for a variety of other things - with a robust enough tagging or recordkeeping system, I could abandon a lot of "put similar things in the same bucket" organization. But that doesn't mean that the stuff isn't organized, it's just organized in a different way.

I'd also say that sometimes those buckets are too stringently defined. For example, if I had extremely simple finances, I could see myself replacing a few dozen file folders with a single box labelled "2011 Finances" or even just "Finances", and dropping bank statements, credit card statements, bills, etc., in that box.

So I'd say that a search system is only OK if (1) the search method is clearly defined, (2) there's assurance of finding the searched-for item and (3) the maximum search time is acceptably small. If I know that every bank statement is in the "Finances" box, and I know that I can find the one I need in less than fifteen minutes by digging through the box, and I rarely need a statement, then that method is perfectly acceptable - to me, that is.

Gardener

[kkuja]

I think Alexander meant reference material, material you need/want to keep but with no action attached to it. And it's a good qestion. I know people who don't organise reference material in foldes and subfolders, just relying on a search to find what they need.

I personally like to have some kind of structure. I'm a consultant, and I do like to have my files ordered by client or by type of activity. I don't think a search would be faster for me than clicking the client folder to find a specific document. Anyway, it would make me feel uncomfortable, so I wouldn't trust that system. But it might work for other people...

Myriam

My answer still applies to me. Before GTD I had piles of reference material, which was not organized and I always had stress because I though there might be something requiring my attention in there. For me, organizing reference material is my definition that something doesn't require my attention anymore. (or reminder of required action is already in its place).

I also organize my emails to email folders, because sometimes it's not obvious how message is related to project it is (people use poor subject lines, and content may not be searchable (for example image)). And I try to keep all electronic materials organized in folders.

I just, few days ago, used two hours trying to find refence email, and ended up asking client to resend to me because it just could not be found. This is just one of my bad experiences with searhing electronic stuff.

[AlexanderChow]

So, the difference is just the speed? If that's ture, I really doubt the value it brings to the table.
Since one day, as technology advances, search speed will catch up with any manual navigation.

[AlexanderChow]

if you never organize things, you would end up having a google like system.
Google comes in handy when you need something. I think as long as things don't require your actions, it's fine to just put them quickly in the basket. The disadvantage I can think of is you hardly know what you have, which create a bit level of anxiety and a feeling of less control and thus a less relax life.

[Tramter]

if you never organize things, you would end up having a google like system.
Google comes in handy when you need something. I think as long as things don't require your actions, it's fine to just put them quickly in the basket. The disadvantage I can think of is you hardly know what you have, which create a bit level of anxiety and a feeling of less control and thus a less relax life.

This comment has been an magnificent eye oponer for me. In my dilemma of Google vs Mircrosoft for GTD I find Google quite useful for its versatility, mobility, etc., but in a way that I cannot explain it doesn´t give the peace of mind that a well structured Windows-based GTD system grants me.

Thanks

[Jamie Elis]

I just looked up the antonym for retrieve and it was lose. What I was trying to find was the word or simple expression for putting things or ideas into categories by some attribute. I was hoping to find the word for creating an organizational scheme and the word for what you do when you put an item into it. Maybe one is something a reference librarian would create and the other a library clerk was "service".

So why organize? What the heck is it? Maybe classification and placement according to some attribute for some purpose.

To keep things accessible: that you use frequently, that when you need one you may need something related.

Because in the process of setting it up and retrieving you see connections and redundancies.

Why not just hodge-podge things? It depends on the degree of heterogeneity, the volume and how functional it is for you.

Sometimes it works for a certain class of items very well--I have box about 12" x10" by 6" labeled "odd parts and mystery objects" this works perfectly, within the family odd sock bin, I was spending too much time searching for a match so I categorized the socks by color and placed each color in a clear plastic bag. My dear friend keeps everything important in a pile on his desk. That would kill me but it works for him. A dear family member makes so many categories he can't remember what is in what (not functional). Some things just do not need to be put into plastic sleeves and alphabetized but if you need to keep a canonical set of original forms it might be a good idea.

[Gardener]

So, the difference is just the speed? If that's ture, I really doubt the value it brings to the table.
Since one day, as technology advances, search speed will catch up with any manual navigation.

I'd say that it's not just speed, it's also whether you can find the item at all. If the search string either doesn't find the item, or it finds hundreds of thousands of items, it doesn't matter how fast the search runs.

[tabinfl]

It depends, I think, on how much stuff you have, how much effort is involved in keeping it organized, how often you need to find something, and how much effort THAT takes.

I keep my household files organized because it's quick to put new items into the proper folder, and I need to be able to find things quickly often. Some of my digital data is similarly organized, some is in fact easier to search (archived email, for example, which I only infrequently need at all).

At our office, there are a number of paper documents that we need to keep (contracts, timesheets, etc.), but which we almost never need to access again once it's "filed". These literally get dumped into a box, labeled with the approximate dates, and put in a closet. The few times we've ever needed to retrieve something, the "search" time has been far less than the time it would have taken to organize all of that paper all along.

[AlexanderChow]

I have been thinking it, our brain is kind of a network where related things are connected. For example, when I just ask you to give me 10 words whatever you can thing of. You will be surprised how few you can come up with.
But when I ask you to give me 10 words that related to a car. You would soon come up with things like, Benz , color, tire, wheel, driver, licence, road, police, etc.
So, if something has no boundaries of definition, it would wander in your brain, finding nowhere to hook on. And that creates anxiety and take you far longer time to decide what to do with it. Because it lost the connections to otherwise some useful informations and pre defined actions if any.

[May]

So do you think that connections are more important than categories?
Also take a look at the main wikipedia categories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamental_categories
and try to find information about a certain topic (for example GTD) starting from those main categories and drilling down to bottom, how fast would that be? I'd say it's quite useless actually so this thread has a good question.

I mean sure some information is best to keep categorized like the gtd system. It has restricted entities, clear edges and so on.
However maybe some information shouldn't be categoriezed and searched for instead?
If it has unrestricted entities, no clear edges and so on...
What I think is that maybe you should use connections to whatever the topic is related to instead if using some Categories.
Project support material is a good example of this because it's connected to whatever you are doing and makes sense to you instead of being filed under lots of different categories...

[JohnV474]

Whether or not to organize a given chunk of data depends on many factors. Here I will mention only one:

1) being able to search your data when your data has become mobile.

For example, your computer crashes, but you have your data backed up on an external drive. You plug the drive into someone else's computer and now need to find a particular photo, or document, etc. Your external drive does not have the file index built for desktop search to work, and so they are useless.

I realize that this scenario may not occur very often, but it does occur. When it does occur, time becomes especially valuable.

FWIW I have not yet found a desktop search tool that works well in all cases. Google Desktop, Copernic, Windows Desktop Search, etc.... each has significant limitations. For example, no tag search, or not filename search, or no contents search, etc. If I use desktop search, I have to keep 3-6 of them installed.

If you only have 1000 documents to sort, this may never be an issue. In an ideal world, a system (like GTD itself) is scalable and functional whether you have 10 items or 10 million.

JV474

[ArcCaster]

In my current world, I am working on a laptop with 11 years worth of data stored on it.

Search is frustrating, because it often does not retrieve what I want, or worse, returns screen after screen of 'hits'.

My 'system' of organizing is frustrating because the categories and 'buckets' that were appropriate ten years ago are no longer appropriate given the influx of additional data -- that is, they need to be gone over, some categories consolidated, some categories expanded. And who has time to wade through 11 years of material to improve the organization?

I wonder whether an improved file naming system might help improve search results and make organization less important? Suppose my files are all named various flavors of 'what_where_when'? Or 'why_how'?

suppose I embed half a dozen keywords in each file when I save it?

Anyone have a naming system that adds little to overhead but greatly enhances retrieval?

Regards,
Rob

[JohnV474]

There are some very simple filing systems that can be extremely helpful. However, even these systems will require some occasional reevaluation and trimming, unless you're the type of person who never rearranges furniture.

Here is one such system:

Main folder:
INBOX = any files saved to the computer that are not put in their permanent spot with an appropriate name, goes here.
READ & REVIEW = may include articles you may want to read, web clippings, websites, etc.
PROJECTS = includes project support material for all current projects, all of which are appropriately named
REFERENCE = includes all reference material and also archived projects, all of which, ideally, would be appropriately named
EQUIPMENT = this contains software (optional).

Under Projects, include subfolders by project.
Under Reference, you could include a folder for Pictures, another for Music, another for Videos.

When I have used this system, Pictures are sorted by year taken. Within each year, they are listed by batch in date order (for example, a May 19th trip of that year: 0519-Trip to Kentucky). I then use a dedicated photo organizer (e.g. Picasa) if I care to sort by person, or by vacations, etc.

Videos are sorted by topic: e.g. Cars, Exercise, TV shows, Comedy clips, etc. If I had a large collection, I would use a dedicated organizer.

Music sorted alphabetically, grouped by letter. Within the artist, by album. If I need further abilities to sort, etc., I use a dedicated program, e.g. Winamp, iTunes.

In project support files, I put the date on all files I work on in YYMMDD format, followed by the project name, followed by the whatever I'd be thinking of in searching for that file. Examples: 110214-Valentines-brainstorm of poss gifts. This file is stored in the appropriate Project folder. If I download something new to Reference, I likewise give an appropriate name immediately or plop it into Inbox to do later.

Your Reference files will be a real bear, especially if you have 11 years' of old data. I can relate, as I have hundreds of thousands of files to keep track of, some of which are vital, and some of which I would delete if I came across it again.

I recommend looking for broad categories that won't change often and then store based on what comes to mind when you file it. David Allen recommends purging your files from outdated or no-longer-relevant material every year. At times, I have found 9 different versions of the same piece of software that I've downloaded over the years.

I would also recommend not going back through that mountain and trying to start from scratch. Start with all of the new information you put in, and as you touch older files, rename them. As you find the old categories don't work, rearrange enough to continue functioning. You do not want to spend an inordinate amount of time rearranging silverware when there's food to eat.

Hope this helps
-JV474
p.s. I use my folders exclusively, ignoring "My Pictures" or "My Documents", as I can use my folder layout with different operating systems instead of just Windows. This is a personal preference.

[pxt]

Some miscellaneous things I do ...

When I decided to dump my old laptop and get something new, I created a folder on my new Macbook called Lenovo. This was just everything that was on my old PC.

Then I created a folder called GTD, at the same level as Documents, and then started organising new material in there.

So I have, under my user name:
Documents
Lenovo
GTD

If I ever need to touch some data from the old laptop, I search for it using whatever tools ( Spotlight on the Mac ), and then I may copy the materials into some project support material under GTD, and then file it and rename it under GTD/Reference.

I never touch the old laptop's contents as I'm afraid of accidentally mangling a file.

I never use the Documents folder, because other software tends to use it as a default and so it doesn't go through my organise step.

I like to name reference files starting with the key object and then the year: Car - 2010 - Insurance Certificate.

I scan as much as possible. If I must keep the original I write "scanned 110525" in the top right corner and then put that anywhere in the scanned file name.

[pxt]

BTW - why organise when you can search?

When the file you are looking for is encrypted.

[JohnV474]

Some miscellaneous things I do ...

When I decided to dump my old laptop and get something new, I created a folder on my new Macbook called Lenovo. This was just everything that was on my old PC.

Then I created a folder called GTD, at the same level as Documents, and then started organising new material in there.

So I have, under my user name:
Documents
Lenovo
GTD


... I just can't take advice from someone who moved from a Lenovo to a Macbook. *smile*

#pretendingtobeafanboy

(Actually, I found some useful ideas here, thanks. I like the idea of putting all of the old files in a single new folder; one benefit of that is it will help you see whether you access some files often enough to keep them).

JV474

[mmorowitz]

After I completed a paperless office project in 2010, I fell to the side of "searching" over "organizing". A meticulously organized paper filling system clearly made sense until I spent a good amount of time working on constructing a usable, reliable digital filling system for notes and reference material.

Now, when I add something to my archive, it gets dropped into one "area of focus" bucket and I just spend a few seconds making sure the item is searchable via inline text and tags (minimal effort). Now, I can simply perform google-like searches on my archive. Do I need to see my car insurance policy? Notes from a meeting I had with a specific individual? A copy of a receipt? No problem.

"Areas of focus" organization simply keeps false hits to a minimum. I always know what area my search needs to be in and I don't need hits from another area.

I still do keep reference/archive/notes in separate "folders" for open projects, someday/maybes and goals. These things have more occasion to be used as a set of information rather than single-item retrieval. Browsing these things is part of my review process.

[Gardener]

I wonder whether an improved file naming system might help improve search results and make organization less important? Suppose my files are all named various flavors of 'what_where_when'? Or 'why_how'?

I'm trying really hard to consistently name my files with a format like:

110525_WidgetProject_MayChangesEstimate_12-13pm

That is,

VersionDate_ProjectOrCategory_WhatIsIt_VersionTime

Further examples could be:

110525_Garden_MaySeedsStarted_12-13pm
110525_Garden_MaySeedlingNotes_12-13pm
110525_Decluttering_StoragePlans_12-13pm
110525_House_RoofingEstimateEmails_12-13pm
110525_Cooking_LowFatRecipeList_12-13pm
110525_Entertaining_MemorialDayGuestList_12-13pm
110525_Car_MaintenanceLog_12-13pm
110525_House_RemodelIdeas_12-13pm
110525_Garden_IrrigationEstimate_12-13pm

The date and time thing reflects the fact that when I make changes to a document, I tend to take a backup first, and then I hesitate to delete the backup. Until I break that habit, the naming convention lets me know which is the latest version.

One difficulty is keeping the categories (Cooking, Entertaining, Car, etc.) consistent. At one time I might use Entertaining, another time Party, another time I might put party stuff into Cooking if I'm focusing on the menu. But even a quick and sloppy name in this format is more useful than no system at all.

None of this tracks workload - all of that is in actions, and some actions may point to a specific file name.

Gardener

[JohnV474]

If a person more often needs to find files by the Category or project, the above file-naming conventions could be adapted as follows:

Gardening_110122_Weed types_12-13
Party_110225_invitation rough draft_0630

In this way, by sorting the file name, a person could quickly skim the categories/projects without having the leave a folder, but the files would naturally be in chronological order under that category/project.

Because all categories and projects would be grouped together, it would be easy to quickly skim the first word in each cluster to notice any inconsistency (e.g. "Birthday Party_100228..." instead of "Party_100228...", etc.).

I put date first but that means I need more folders to separate items easier.

JV474

[ArcCaster]

Great thoughts! Thanks!

I am hearing a few thoughts: a meaningful directory structure, meaningful file names, and periodic purges.

We should probably expand these thoughts to include what is available with 'sort' and with 'search'.

When looking for my current 'stuff', I almost always sort by date.

Sometimes, if I am looking for excel or pdf, I sort by type.

So, within a directory, I can sort by type, by date modified, by name, and by other parameters

Across all directories, I can do the same thing by searching, then sorting what search returns.

So, the question is, what will be defined with filenames, what with folders, what with search, and what with sort? The objective, of course, is to minimize the fields in the filename and still make retrieval as fast as possible.

Regards,
Rob

[stevejackson]

It seems to me a lot of the comments around creating these elaborate labeling systems are exactly the reason that searching is so much more effective. This about all the time you spend labeling things and remembering to label things and remembering your naming convention. With searching, you never have to pay attention to that anymore.

Personally, I use Google Apps for business and for a while I was trying to tag things, but it was really silly because I would only remember about 25% of the time. So I gave up and I just rely on searching. Sure, the search might take me a few tries, but I only do it occasionally and the total time I spend searching is a LOT less than trying to maintain a label system.

Trying to remember to follow up on things still remains a challenge though.

[Paper Ninja]

This is a great topic.

When deciding how to organize anything, I always consider if the amount of time spent organizing is going to give me ROI in the near future.

For example: I am going to reveal how I organize all my personal bills, reciepts, tax documents tec. at home, that I guarantee is going to make 98% of the good folks in the forums CRINGE with terror.

Ready...

step 1 - get a box
step 2 - throw everything into the box
step 3 - there is no step 3

In the last 5 months, I have had to look for something (it's all my personal financial paperwork, remember) a grand total of 3 times. Total search time of about 15 minutes combined.

Time to file all of in into "o-so-anal" folders and file-cabinets? 2-3 hrs?

Now, I know this post started with a discussion of electronic sorting, but the same rules apply. Outlook has such good search capabilities now, I never file anything into folders. After I read and process an email, I just drag it into a folder I have labeled "Processed", or I throw it away.

[JohnV474]

While rereading part of this thread, I was reminded of a phrase that David Allen said during one of the audiobooks. I don't have the exact quote, but it was something like "... what we are trying to figure out is how to have the information that you want, when and how you want it."

If I very rarely look at a file (e.g. tax receipts), it would definitely not pay off to create a complex database that was accessible from my phone, computer, etc.

Some of the answers of whether to organize or search will depend on how often you need the information, and the typical circumstances.

For example, if I get a letter from my tax man, I may have three weeks to gather the information I need. However, if I am in charge of emergency repair workers, and they call me from various locations needing address or contact information so they can find the location, I would definitely want that information available quickly, no matter what.

The old definition of an entrepreneur is someone who shifts resources from an area of lower payoff to an area of higher payoff.

Hope this helps!
-JV474

[Mark Jantzen]

I've also heard David emphasize the importance of trying things with your content to get a real world sense of what works and what doesn't ... for you!

I'm in between with Search. I've found the Mac easier (better?) than Windows and a personal preference to using search for reference items but not for actionable or action support things.

For example my personal email is in Apple's Mail program. I have a single Reference folder and searching works great for the occasional need to look at that stuff.

But when I tried it for Action Support my aversion to search was really high. I found it just "worked" better (for me) to create a folder with the name of the project and then I could dump a variety of emails knowing I could easliy find them all in one place.

But the key is try both methods in practice before deciding based only on the theory.

Mark

[Oogiem]

It seems to me a lot of the comments around creating these elaborate labeling systems are exactly the reason that searching is so much more effective. This about all the time you spend labeling things and remembering to label things and remembering your naming convention. With searching, you never have to pay attention to that anymore.

Not for me, searching typically either results in thousands of items or too few. Filing properly gets me down to a few hundred and if I can't find it within that group I can go through them one by one easily.

It's also really about how to allow other people into your filing cabinets (both paper and electronic) searching is fine for a single use but falls completely apart for multiple people especially with physical papers.

[Oogiem]

In the last 5 months, I have had to look for something (it's all my personal financial paperwork, remember) a grand total of 3 times. Total search time of about 15 minutes combined.

If it's working for you that's fine.

Here's why I file all that tax stuff in careful folders with distinct labels.

We typically get audited by the IRS about every 3 years. Being a farm they can pull 10 years worth of stuff on us. Before filing all tax related items carefully it would take me at least 60 hours to sort, prepare, scan and send off the backup receipts etc. to the accountant for each audit. That's roughly 20 hours a year. In a bad year that kind of prep work might take me 3 weeks or 120 hours which would be more like 40 hours a year. Filing takes me about an hour a month max and many months it's closer to 30 minutes. Max time per year about 12 hours. I save a full day per year minimum with careful filing.

I've found similar benefits in other areas. I'd be curious to see if you continue to enjoy the benefits of your filing system over longer time periods. In my example I can go nearly 3 years before I need the stuff but when I do having it filed saves me lots of time. 5 months is no where near long enough and even a year is iffy IMO.

[Paper Ninja]

Oogie:

Just a quick clarification. I only use the "sloppy box" method with my personal financial stuff (bank statements, credit card invoices, water bill).

At work, I file stuff away in folders and filing cabinets just like the rest of the world.

[Gardener]

For example: I am going to reveal how I organize all my personal bills, reciepts, tax documents tec. at home, that I guarantee is going to make 98% of the good folks in the forums CRINGE with terror.

Ready...

step 1 - get a box
step 2 - throw everything into the box
step 3 - there is no step 3

Actually, I consider this filing. I've more than once advocated a filing system that divides stuff into chunks as large as "2011 Financial" or even just "Financial". And that's what you're doing. If you can pull together what you need in a reasonable period of time, then it's an adequate filing system - and "reasonable period of time" would depend on a lot of factors.

I similarly don't sort my email at all, beyond putting all of a year's mail into one file. Email is sufficiently structured and tagged, automatically (To, From, Date, etc.) that I'm reasonably confident of being able to find stuff - though if I have an action based on an email, I'll put specific identifying information into the action.

Disk files are not as structured - if I open a file and absentmindedly save it, for example, then I've lost basic date information. And the To and From in email narrows down subjects; disk files don't have that, either. So that's why I feel the need for dates and topics in disk files but not for email.

Gardener

[mmorowitz]

Actually, I consider this filing. I've more than once advocated a filing system that divides stuff into chunks as large as "2011 Financial" or even just "Financial". And that's what you're doing. If you can pull together what you need in a reasonable period of time, then it's an adequate filing system - and "reasonable period of time" would depend on a lot of factors.

I similarly don't sort my email at all, beyond putting all of a year's mail into one file. Email is sufficiently structured and tagged, automatically (To, From, Date, etc.) that I'm reasonably confident of being able to find stuff - though if I have an action based on an email, I'll put specific identifying information into the action.

Disk files are not as structured - if I open a file and absentmindedly save it, for example, then I've lost basic date information. And the To and From in email narrows down subjects; disk files don't have that, either. So that's why I feel the need for dates and topics in disk files but not for email.

Gardener

I agree. It doesn't make me cringe at all. The effort you put into organizing a particular file should be proportional to the amount of times you are likely to access it.

[ArcCaster]

I confess to a similar 'big bucket' system. After the first four years on my current computer, I noticed that there was a lot of 'old' stuff mixed in with my current stuff, making it harder to find what I needed. So, in 2004, I started creating a new directory every year -- 2004, 2005, 2006, etc. Within those yearly folders, I had separate folders for the various products I supported, and for the key people I work with.

What is good about this is that my 'current stuff' is easier to find.

What is bad about it is that, by now, I have 8 separate directories (one for each year) to sort through to find 'old' stuff.

So, hierarchy (separate folders for each year) is great because it allows you to divide and conquer.

Hierarchy is bad because now you have lots of woodchuck burrows, and you have to crawl down into each burrow to look for what you need.

So, I am wondering about a file-naming convention that would allow me to eliminate the hierarchy and keep everything in one big flat directory -- everything is visible at once, and I can simply search or sort by year, or by subject, or by modification date, or by some phrase or keyword that is part of the filename, or by whatever is necessary for lightning retrieval.

Regards,
Rob

[pxt]

I confess to a similar 'big bucket' system. After the first four years on my current computer, I noticed that there was a lot of 'old' stuff mixed in with my current stuff, making it harder to find what I needed. So, in 2004, I started creating a new directory every year -- 2004, 2005, 2006, etc. Within those yearly folders, I had separate folders for the various products I supported, and for the key people I work with.

What is good about this is that my 'current stuff' is easier to find.

What is bad about it is that, by now, I have 8 separate directories (one for each year) to sort through to find 'old' stuff.

So, hierarchy (separate folders for each year) is great because it allows you to divide and conquer.

Hierarchy is bad because now you have lots of woodchuck burrows, and you have to crawl down into each burrow to look for what you need.

So, I am wondering about a file-naming convention that would allow me to eliminate the hierarchy and keep everything in one big flat directory -- everything is visible at once, and I can simply search or sort by year, or by subject, or by modification date, or by some phrase or keyword that is part of the filename, or by whatever is necessary for lightning retrieval.

Regards,
Rob

As well as my fully GTD'd reference folder, I have a simple flat folder called Archive.
In here goes stuff I might want someday-maybe for an unpredictable purpose.
So I name them very simply as date+counterpart+object, eg: 110521_Staples_Invoice. By not being too specific, I can find the right invoice with a bit of trial and error but don't spend ages wondering what to call things.

[adhdork]

if you never organize things, you would end up having a google like system.
Google comes in handy when you need something...

Even Google has an organization method.

[vicve]

Organizing works for me because I have to be pretty darn certain of key words I used in order to find what I need if I'm just relying on the search functionality. Items pertaining to a particular project may have none of the key terms stated in them. Therefore, organizing is much easier than having to rack your brain to think about what search words you might need.

[JohnV474]

It seems to me a lot of the comments around creating these elaborate labeling systems are exactly the reason that searching is so much more effective. This about all the time you spend labeling things and remembering to label things and remembering your naming convention. With searching, you never have to pay attention to that anymore.


I would recommend using the simplest organizational structure that your data, and your needs to find it, can tolerate. If you are searching for less-critical information (say, tips for a video game or gardening ideas), then search alone may work.

Where it will not work is if you face situations where you need to find a specific piece of information and you do not have much time to find it.

Many of the systems described in this thread are semi-functional only because they are small. If you were suddenly to be saving 10x or 100x the number of files, the system would break down. I tend to prefer systems that would work at a larger scale than I currently use.

It may help others in weighing my comments to know that I have a very large reference library of 50,000+ PDF and text files. As a result, searches for '2009 taxes', for example, will bring up anything with '2009' or 'taxes' in the text, and I will have hundreds or thousands of results. Most of these are work-related reference information that will rarely be needed, but when needed, need to be available very quickly.

Last thought: it is difficult to browse by topic if they are not sorted in that way.

JV

[bobbyman]

Many of the systems described in this thread are semi-functional only because they are small. If you were suddenly to be saving 10x or 100x the number of files, the system would break down.

Great point.

My thoughts:
Ultimately you need both organize and search. A great example is wikipedia. First you search then you can browse for related information/categories because it's both well organizied and searchable.
Using as many categories as Wikipedia would be overkill for 99% of people's personal knowledge bases so I don't mean you should copy wikipedia categories and such, I mean it just demonstrates the best approach.

Another good example would be semantic search but you would still need to define categories and so on and it means you would still have to organize things. So it's just a better search but the approach is exactly the same

[ArcCaster]

Since I last posted, I stumbled across some notes saying it is expected that you will sift through your files and purge and organize on a regular basis.

I am starting my 12th year on the same system, have never re-organized or purged, and the thought of going through all that stuff is a bit overwhelming. So I wonder -- is this the kind of thing I could delegate? Or does sorting my stuff require my personal perspective?

Regards,
Rob

[mcogilvie]

My mother has been a hoarder for at least the last twenty-five years. Let me tell you, facing up to the issues this has raised for my family has made me really, really aware of the consequences of not purging and organizing on a regular basis. It's gotta be done.

[Oogiem]

So I wonder -- is this the kind of thing I could delegate? Or does sorting my stuff require my personal perspective?

IMO No that absolutely cannot be delegated. And if more than one person uses or is affected by the files or stuff you had both better be there during the sorting and purging. I would throw away stuff my husband deems critical and vice versa. Plus we often think totally differently on how to file and later find something so we have to discuss each of those items as they come up and settle on the way we will both use the file system.

[arviescoot]

If we can't find any solution regarding to our question google is the best solution for it.
So we must know what is the work of google to us.

[Cpu_Modern]

Re delegating I am with Oogie, this absolutely cannot be delegated. You would ask for trouble.


the thought of going through all that stuff is a bit overwhelming.
I handle this like processing, I do it all the time. Little and often. I have a bookmark, that wanders through the 'pile'. That way each layer gets dealt with sooner or later. It's an ongoing thing.