Timeline for Please help to reopen "managing huge personal data"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Apr 8, 2012 at 12:56 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman Eight colors, including "none". See a screenshot of partial list view here. You can sort by color, and even give them other labels than just color names. Incredibly useful, just like opening subfolders in list view, both of which I really miss on Windows. | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:47 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Wait? You can color a file in Mac OS X? Wonder if that can be done on Windows too. But indeed, other / newer papers might help. Haven't seen in which year the paper was written or what search engines he specifically means, but still reading through it to get an idea of what he is onto. Won't answer my question in the first days to see if I can get a different approach on it (perhaps even put a bounty on it)... | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:39 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod |
@TomWijsman Regarding search, Win+F / menu bar Spotlight don't have a starting point AFAICT. They just search everything not excluded by default.
|
|
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:37 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman Another thing that's missing is capabilities of file management software or file systems, like using textual metadata (or colors, as in HFS+) to annotate files (I use colors extensively on OS X), or other capabilities, like thumbnail previews/file type icons, different sorting and grouping features, and e.g. Finder's ability (which I absolutely love) to disclose subfolder contents in the hierarchical list view. For a start, regarding the very basics of the issue, the paper's somewhat useful though. | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:32 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @DanielBeck: True, but for Search to work you would still need a simple organization of the files and folders, organization makes it easier to find relevant things as they are very near in the file tree. Seems that end of page 4 and start of page 5 mentions that there are preferences for navigation, and page 4 seems to mention search (not full-text though). | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:26 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman It's rather useful in that it provides empirical evidence for obvious measures, like that having folders with lots of items makes it difficult to find one specific file. But they have somewhat solid recommendations of ideal folder size (unsurprisingly: up to 20 items). Unfortunately, it fails to incorporate rather recent tech, like efficient desktop full text search, which would also be relevant here. I just scanned it so far, so the details might be interesting too. | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:20 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @DanielBeck: I just want an advice question on this and useful answers on this, also note that the tags mention "how to organize data" but there doesn't seem to be a question that actually solves the problem that some/most of us are experiencing. Perhaps the old one is indeed not salvageable, but made the bar as high as possible on the new one so it really involves scientific papers and/or books in the business. The link from my previous comment is something I have just found but I haven't read through it yet, perhaps it does answer my question, perhaps not. Might self answer if it does... | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:16 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @DanielBeck: Paper that answers this question in an objective way? Here you go... ;) | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 11:16 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman I could answer the question in a subjective way, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider it not answerable in its current form, which is what the close reason says. And I consider all questions valuable that adhere to the rules, me stating "I don't see value" just means it fails one of the tests and should be closed. I'm looking forward to answers to your new question though, since you set the bar pretty high — everything not citing research will be not an answer... | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 10:47 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @TomWijsman There's no advice in the question. The only advice we can provide is "Try to make a useful hierarchy of your data", and that's what the user apparently already did, and failed at: I tried many times to sort this but mess up and couldn't find the way.. There's no one true solution to this: Structuring arbitrary files is a highly specialized problem, what works for my data won't work for yours, and what works for you might not work for me (or my workflow). I don't see any value (beyond just stating the obvious) in the question. | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 10:33 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | Read my last paragraph. | |
| Apr 8, 2012 at 10:16 | history | answered | Sathyajith BhatMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |