Why, then, organize when you can search?

[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]

Also, category first in file names

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]

Because searching doesn't require you to abide by a system

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]

David Allen and GTD....

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]

Theory v. Practice

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.

 

[Vickie]

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]

simple systems

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