Adding a note to a File Name?


Ad

Advertisements

G

Gene E. Bloch

Good to know that I'm conforming to the standard.

I probably should have guessed that there would be a standard that looks
like that.

For Mick, yes, I was thinking more narrowly than I should have been. I
was ignoring the year and just thinking about month/day vs day/month in
the vernacular usage, e.g. 8/16/13 in the US and 16/08/13 in many other
places.
 
M

mick

Good to know that I'm conforming to the standard.

I probably should have guessed that there would be a standard that looks
like that.

For Mick, yes, I was thinking more narrowly than I should have been. I
was ignoring the year and just thinking about month/day vs day/month in
the vernacular usage, e.g. 8/16/13 in the US and 16/08/13 in many other
places.
Its strange how we each evolve our own unique filing system to suit our
own specific needs without really thinking twice about it. Having
looked at what I do most often, I name folders by: yyyy mm dd subject
or location (2013 08 17 London) for all the folders in My Pictures, for
the files in those folders they are: file name with a four digit suffix
(shard0001.jpg) - easy to do with batch renaming software.

For work purposes, when issuing invoices I have folders named:
2013Invoices, and the files in them are: customer name yyyymmdd plus a
two digit suffix, (Shell2013081701.pdf) [I don't ever get to 99 in one
day :/)

For many other personal files, the majority of the time I will add the
yyyymmdd as a suffix as I find it helps avoiding overwriting important
stuff accidentally by choosing an already existing file name, or I may
want to keep the same name with just a different date, such as typing
letters to the same recipient.

I think I have evolved using the date as a identifier through using a
decent file manager for many years as opposed to windows explorer. I
find it is so easy to search for folders and files with numeric content
than just alphabetic naming, plus it keeps everything in a logical
order when you just scroll through the folders and files.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
For Mick, yes, I was thinking more narrowly than I should have been. I
was ignoring the year and just thinking about month/day vs day/month in
the vernacular usage, e.g. 8/16/13 in the US and 16/08/13 in many other
places.
Not using two-digit years is is a first step. Then using ascending (EU
style, dd-mm-yyy) or descending (ISO, yyyy-mm-dd,, which has the
advantage it can continue into hh:mm:ss).

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"God give me work \ Till my life shall end \ And life \ Till my work is done."
-
gravestone of Winifred Holtby, Yorkshire novelist
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

[I don't ever get to 99 in one day :/)
If that ever happens, use hex numbers for the extras :)

I just did an experiment and learned that it won't sort properly: 9A
precedes 99 :-(
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

Wolf K

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch

Not using two-digit years is is a first step. Then using ascending (EU
style, dd-mm-yyy) or descending (ISO, yyyy-mm-dd,, which has the
advantage it can continue into hh:mm:ss).

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)
Two reasons, I think: "The 4th of July" specifies "the " day. Then
there's the rhythm: da Da da da DA has neat beat. "July 4th" just ain't
got that pizzazz. These thinsg work on us subconsciously.

Here it's Canada Day, which everybody _knows_ July 1st. And the rhythm
is DA da da DA, which has that pizzazz.

Have a good one.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch

Not using two-digit years is is a first step. Then using ascending (EU
style, dd-mm-yyy) or descending (ISO, yyyy-mm-dd,, which has the
advantage it can continue into hh:mm:ss).

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)
In naming files I almost invariably use 4-digit years.

As for when I write the month name out, I often do it the European way,
e.g., 16 August 2013. It's a relic of my time in the service.

I am in the US, so I as wrote the date above, it was a day early for you
:)
 
P

Peter Jason

Is there any way to append a note to a file without effecting that file's
name.
In other words if I have a file "PHOTOGRAPHS" How can I add a note to this
file such as "Vacation in the mountains 2013."

Thanks,

Freckles

(Win7) In the image file properties, select the
tab "details" and go to the "comments" where a
text field will appear that will accept your text.

Certain other facts can be added as one slowly
passes down the other list.

I use Photoshop (or similar) to place text
actually on the image itself, so that this appears
on any kiosk printout for people without
computers. It's very easy to do.
 
A

Ashton Crusher

Is there any way to append a note to a file without effecting that file's
name.
In other words if I have a file "PHOTOGRAPHS" How can I add a note to this
file such as "Vacation in the mountains 2013."

Thanks,

Freckles

Is there some reason you can't just name the file "Vacation in the
mountains 2013"? I used to have the same question you do and then
realized that you can just put the "note" in the file name and be done
with it, no need to open another program and create tags, or create a
separate index in a spreadsheet. When you want to find your vacation
photos from your Vacation in the mountains 2013 you just search for
*mountains 2013*. You can also create subfolders in your PHOTO
folder. Make a subfolder called "Vacation in the mountains 2013" Any
search will find that too.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Ashton Crusher said:
Is there some reason you can't just name the file "Vacation in the
mountains 2013"? I used to have the same question you do and then
realized that you can just put the "note" in the file name and be done
with it, no need to open another program and create tags, or create a
separate index in a spreadsheet. When you want to find your vacation
photos from your Vacation in the mountains 2013 you just search for
*mountains 2013*. You can also create subfolders in your PHOTO
folder. Make a subfolder called "Vacation in the mountains 2013" Any
search will find that too.
It's not clear whether "Freckles" meant a file or a folder, though I
think s/he meant a folder.

As time progresses, it will be possible - i. e. part of the basic OS,
which I thin is what you mean when you say find - to search on at least
the more standard embedded tags; for example, I think W7 allows the
artist and title tags of mp3 files to be shown as a column, and thus (by
clicking on the headings) sorted by. [I'd still recommend putting the
date at the beginning of the filename/comment/whatever, though, and in
yyyy-mm-dd format too.]

I'd agree with you though about creating a separate index, whether in a
spreadsheet or various photo-organising softwares (those tend to refer
to "albums"); if a file can be moved separately from the index, then the
index (or rather the software that accesses it) gets confused. Any such
information should ideally be part of the file, either as the filename
or embedded in it as a tag. (Tags survive accidental renaming of the
file, too.)
 
Ad

Advertisements

Y

Yousuf Khan

Is that what the default Windows photo viewer does?

It lets me write tags and a date for the photo, but when I look at them in
Irfanview, I can't see that information.
Depends on what sort of information is being written. When you talk
about "tags", are you referring to the tags in the form you see on
Facebook and other social media sites which let you tag a person in the
picture? If so then yes, that's likely being done completely
proprietarily through the ADS system. Other info about the pictures are
built into the EXIF fields, which lets you tag location and time info
into the picture, as well as make and model of camera, etc. So some of
the properties might go into the EXIF fields of the picture itself,
while others might be outside the scope of EXIF and be attached via ADS.

Yousuf Khan
 
C

Char Jackson

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)
We have a national day?
 
C

Char Jackson

Be careful when using "libraries". The "folders" do not contain copies
of any files. Libraries are complicated beasts, that do not behave as
you would guess or infer from their use of "folders", and the appearance
of files within the libraries themselves.
As you probably know, I think the warnings about the use of Libraries border
on ridiculous unless you want to extend the exact same warning to the rest
of Windows Explorer. After all, non-Library files and folders viewed in
Windows Explorer aren't copies, either. I don't know why you'd think a
Library view would be any different.
 
W

Wolf K

As you probably know, I think the warnings about the use of Libraries border
on ridiculous unless you want to extend the exact same warning to the rest
of Windows Explorer.
Well, OP thought that a Library is a container for copies of files. This
seems to be a fairly common misconception of Libraries. I was addressing
that misconception. It's an easy mistake to make, considering how MS
describes libraries, as follows:

"Libraries are collections where you can get to all your documents,
music, pictures, and other files in one single place. In some ways, a
library works like a folder: you can use it to browse and sort files.
But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are stored in several
locations. This is a subtle, but important, difference. Libraries don't
actually store your items. They pull from folders that contain your
items, and let you open and arrange the items in different ways. For
example, if you have music files in folders on your PC and on an
external drive, you can get all of your music files from the Music library."

Easy to infer that "gathers files" means either a) the Library extracts
those files and puts them in one location; or b) it makes copies and
puts them in one location. a) looks unreasonable, so it must be b)....

I stand by my warning, which I will rephrase and expand to:
Beware. Libraries may do things you don't expect if you think of them as
regular folders. First learn from those who have used them successfully.

And just so you know that I have inkling of what I'm talking about:

A Library is not the same as a regular folder. A regular folder is a
container for files. Technically, it's a file listing other files. A
Library is a list of pointers to the contents of all folders than
contain the items displayed in the library. It's not a container. It
does not hold copies of the files that it points to. It doesn't hold the
original files, either: they are still in the folders in which you
stored them originally. A Library is a list of lists.

One would think that if one removes a file from a Library, then only the
pointer will be deleted, and that the file itself will still exist in
its original folder. That's what many people have thought, and some have
reported here, with some consternation, that it's not so. A folder added
by the user is not actually deleted, but items within that folder can be
deleted. That's a design bug: no file or subfolder in a Library, at any
level of the hierarchy, should be deleted from its original location.
After all, non-Library files and folders viewed in
Windows Explorer aren't copies, either. I don't know why you'd think a
Library view would be any different.
Reread the Help: "But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations." But if it gathers files, it must be a
folder...

IMO the Help is badly written, and it's badly written because Libraries
have been badly implemented. That doesn't prevent their successful use,
of course. A lot of badly designed programs are used successfully.

Have a good one.
 
J

John

Well, OP thought that a Library is a container for copies of files. This
seems to be a fairly common misconception of Libraries. I was addressing
that misconception. It's an easy mistake to make, considering how MS
describes libraries, as follows:

"Libraries are collections where you can get to all your documents,
music, pictures, and other files in one single place. In some ways, a
library works like a folder: you can use it to browse and sort files.
But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are stored in several
locations. This is a subtle, but important, difference. Libraries don't
actually store your items. They pull from folders that contain your
items, and let you open and arrange the items in different ways. For
example, if you have music files in folders on your PC and on an
external drive, you can get all of your music files from the Music library."

Easy to infer that "gathers files" means either a) the Library extracts
those files and puts them in one location; or b) it makes copies and
puts them in one location. a) looks unreasonable, so it must be b)....

I stand by my warning, which I will rephrase and expand to:
Beware. Libraries may do things you don't expect if you think of them as
regular folders. First learn from those who have used them successfully.

And just so you know that I have inkling of what I'm talking about:

A Library is not the same as a regular folder. A regular folder is a
container for files. Technically, it's a file listing other files. A
Library is a list of pointers to the contents of all folders than
contain the items displayed in the library. It's not a container. It
does not hold copies of the files that it points to. It doesn't hold the
original files, either: they are still in the folders in which you
stored them originally. A Library is a list of lists.
So, a "library" is just an index card with the names, dates, places
and descriptions of the files, like a paper index card in a paper
based Library?
It's like me knowing where my email files are. My memory of them does
not affect the files in any way, and I can store the knowledge of an
image file showing M31 in many ways in my memory or even forget it
without harm to the file on the PC?

One would think that if one removes a file from a Library, then only the
pointer will be deleted, and that the file itself will still exist in
its original folder. That's what many people have thought, and some have
reported here, with some consternation, that it's not so. A folder added
by the user is not actually deleted, but items within that folder can be
deleted. That's a design bug: no file or subfolder in a Library, at any
level of the hierarchy, should be deleted from its original location.
So a "Library" is *NOT* merely an index-card it is a true link to the
file in the same way as the file's FAT link or NTFS entry and deleting
the entry in the Library will lose the file? [Not "delete" it, as
losing the filesystem entry only loses track of the file.]
This interpretation is what I thought when I first heard of "Library
files" a couple of years ago when Win7 was first described and it's
why I avoid them completely.
I have the impression that Microsoft was not entirely sure of what it
wanted when it told its teams to create "Libraries". Some of the teams
seem to have implemented a virtual list system that does no harm at
all to the original files and some teams seem to have made "Libraries"
something like an active "File Allocation Table" that actually touches
real files, or at least their entries in the filesystem map of the OS
so deletions are possible.
I may be missing something and I may be misinterpreting more but it
looks like "Libraries" are bloody dangerous. Especially to novice
handlers.
Yes?
No?
Reread the Help: "But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations." But if it gathers files, it must be a
folder...
Would it have been better if the Helpfile said something like
"...gathers notes *about* files but *never* the files themselves..."
and Libraries were implemented so that were true?
IMO the Help is badly written, and it's badly written because Libraries
have been badly implemented. That doesn't prevent their successful use,
of course. A lot of badly designed programs are used successfully.
Yes, may I note "Windows"? The ever-evolving thing that is "Windows"
is often poorly designed, internally inconsistent, incompatible with
itself and older versions and implemented in strange ways for reasons
no one can fathom but a vast amount of exceptionally good work is done
on many versions of Windows.
If you want a well-designed program that "does what it says on the
tin" have a look at IrfanView. Mr. Skiljan is an excellent programmer
who put a lot of thought and effort into this little gem. But he has a
*massive* advantage over even the very best of Microsoft's people. He
is one man with one vision doing one job. He isn't part of a vast team
being given fifty projects by ten different management teams all of
which are crash critical top priority.
Lone wolves have it easy compared to company programmers. In some
ways.

No version of Windows will ever be a one-man show, so little oddities
will always exist.
Nature of the beast.

But I'd like to know if my interpretations of "Library" are anywhere
near correct. As an indexing system *ONLY* they looked cool, but as a
file handling system they are messy and irrelevant.
J.
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

John said:
Well, OP thought that a Library is a container for copies of files. This
seems to be a fairly common misconception of Libraries. I was addressing
that misconception. It's an easy mistake to make, considering how MS
describes libraries, as follows:

"Libraries are collections where you can get to all your documents,
music, pictures, and other files in one single place. In some ways, a
library works like a folder: you can use it to browse and sort files.
But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are stored in several
locations. This is a subtle, but important, difference. Libraries don't
actually store your items. They pull from folders that contain your
items, and let you open and arrange the items in different ways. For
example, if you have music files in folders on your PC and on an
external drive, you can get all of your music files from the Music library."

Easy to infer that "gathers files" means either a) the Library extracts
those files and puts them in one location; or b) it makes copies and
puts them in one location. a) looks unreasonable, so it must be b)....

I stand by my warning, which I will rephrase and expand to:
Beware. Libraries may do things you don't expect if you think of them as
regular folders. First learn from those who have used them successfully.

And just so you know that I have inkling of what I'm talking about:

A Library is not the same as a regular folder. A regular folder is a
container for files. Technically, it's a file listing other files. A
Library is a list of pointers to the contents of all folders than
contain the items displayed in the library. It's not a container. It
does not hold copies of the files that it points to. It doesn't hold the
original files, either: they are still in the folders in which you
stored them originally. A Library is a list of lists.
So, a "library" is just an index card with the names, dates, places
and descriptions of the files, like a paper index card in a paper
based Library?
It's like me knowing where my email files are. My memory of them does
not affect the files in any way, and I can store the knowledge of an
image file showing M31 in many ways in my memory or even forget it
without harm to the file on the PC?

One would think that if one removes a file from a Library, then only the
pointer will be deleted, and that the file itself will still exist in
its original folder. That's what many people have thought, and some have
reported here, with some consternation, that it's not so. A folder added
by the user is not actually deleted, but items within that folder can be
deleted. That's a design bug: no file or subfolder in a Library, at any
level of the hierarchy, should be deleted from its original location.
So a "Library" is *NOT* merely an index-card it is a true link to the
file in the same way as the file's FAT link or NTFS entry and deleting
the entry in the Library will lose the file? [Not "delete" it, as
losing the filesystem entry only loses track of the file.]
This interpretation is what I thought when I first heard of "Library
files" a couple of years ago when Win7 was first described and it's
why I avoid them completely.
I have the impression that Microsoft was not entirely sure of what it
wanted when it told its teams to create "Libraries". Some of the teams
seem to have implemented a virtual list system that does no harm at
all to the original files and some teams seem to have made "Libraries"
something like an active "File Allocation Table" that actually touches
real files, or at least their entries in the filesystem map of the OS
so deletions are possible.
I may be missing something and I may be misinterpreting more but it
looks like "Libraries" are bloody dangerous. Especially to novice
handlers.
Yes?
No?
Reread the Help: "But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations." But if it gathers files, it must be a
folder...
Would it have been better if the Helpfile said something like
"...gathers notes *about* files but *never* the files themselves..."
and Libraries were implemented so that were true?
IMO the Help is badly written, and it's badly written because Libraries
have been badly implemented. That doesn't prevent their successful use,
of course. A lot of badly designed programs are used successfully.
Yes, may I note "Windows"? The ever-evolving thing that is "Windows"
is often poorly designed, internally inconsistent, incompatible with
itself and older versions and implemented in strange ways for reasons
no one can fathom but a vast amount of exceptionally good work is done
on many versions of Windows.
If you want a well-designed program that "does what it says on the
tin" have a look at IrfanView. Mr. Skiljan is an excellent programmer
who put a lot of thought and effort into this little gem. But he has a
*massive* advantage over even the very best of Microsoft's people. He
is one man with one vision doing one job. He isn't part of a vast team
being given fifty projects by ten different management teams all of
which are crash critical top priority.
Lone wolves have it easy compared to company programmers. In some
ways.

No version of Windows will ever be a one-man show, so little oddities
will always exist.
Nature of the beast.

But I'd like to know if my interpretations of "Library" are anywhere
near correct. As an indexing system *ONLY* they looked cool, but as a
file handling system they are messy and irrelevant.
J.
Have a good one.
A "library" is controlled by an XML file. The file has a list of
folders, as far as I know. Plus, it nominates a "Default" folder.

If a file is dropped into a library, it is physically stored in
the currently selected Default folder.

You cannot see the XML file. It ends in .library-ms but is hidden.
I've looked at them from another OS, so they can be found.

C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Libraries\
Documents.library-ms \
Music.library-ms \___ The four libraries you see in explorer...
Pictures.library-ms / Can be opened in Wordpad, as they're text.
Videos.library-ms /

As an experiment, I added a couple folders to my Music library.
The added folders were on my D: and E: partitions.

If I look in the file "Music.library-ms" (which is an XML text file),

<url>E:\first</url>
...
<url>F:\second</url>

So the two folders I added to Music library, on partitions other
than C:, are now part of the library.

I don't think files are enumerated in the XML. And folders
in a library are treated differently than files. The library
is a way of hooking in folders to a common place. The software
makes it look like they're a "file system".

Paul
 
W

Wolf K

On 2013-08-20 11:14 AM, John wrote:
[...]
But I'd like to know if my interpretations of "Library" are anywhere
near correct. As an indexing system*ONLY* they looked cool, but as a
file handling system they are messy and irrelevant.
Both an indexing and a file-handling system.

When you delete a folder within a library, the original folder is not
touched. When you delete an item within a folder within a library, that
item is deleted from its original location. AFAIK, That includes subfolders.

Fun, ain't it?

Have a good one.
 
C

Char Jackson

I may be missing something and I may be misinterpreting more but it
looks like "Libraries" are bloody dangerous. Especially to novice
handlers.
Yes?
No?
I think what you're missing is that managing the contents of Libraries via
Windows Explorer is no more dangerous than managing the contents of any
other folder. By that I mean that managing the contents of your Libraries
can be extremely dangerous, but managing the contents of a non-Library is
exactly as dangerous. Yet, we don't hear the same warnings. Weird.

I honestly don't know why a relatively small number of people are so vocal
(and so stubborn) about their misconceptions. I would have thought that
enough time has elapsed for even the most stubborn to overcome their
misconceptions 100 times over by now. It's really not that hard.
If you want a well-designed program that "does what it says on the
tin" have a look at IrfanView.
For this example, the tables may have turned. I tried Irfanview for a few
months earlier this year and totally hated it. It didn't do what I wanted,
nor did it work as I wanted it to work. The difference is that I didn't warn
people to stay away from it.
But I'd like to know if my interpretations of "Library" are anywhere
near correct.
IMHO, no, but my opinion surely won't sway you.
As an indexing system *ONLY* they looked cool, but as a
file handling system they are messy and irrelevant.
I use several Libraries dozens of times a day. I find them to be very
convenient and they work for me in a completely predictable way. YMMV
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

Well, OP thought that a Library is a container for copies of files.
Sorry, the OP in this thread made no mention of Libraries at all. You may be
thinking of another thread.
This
seems to be a fairly common misconception of Libraries.
I disagree. A very small number of people, (the same people over and over),
have expressed this misconception.
I was addressing that misconception.
Translation: You were acknowledging that you share that misconception and to
date have been unable to overcome it. Am I right?
I stand by my warning, which I will rephrase and expand to:
Likewise, I stand by my opinion of your warning. I think it's ridiculous.
Beware. Libraries may do things you don't expect if you think of them as
regular folders. First learn from those who have used them successfully.
I have been using Libraries successfully for a very long time now. What
would you like to know?
And just so you know that I have inkling of what I'm talking about:

A Library is not the same as a regular folder. A regular folder is a
container for files. Technically, it's a file listing other files. A
Library is a list of pointers to the contents of all folders than
contain the items displayed in the library. It's not a container. It
does not hold copies of the files that it points to. It doesn't hold the
original files, either: they are still in the folders in which you
stored them originally. A Library is a list of lists.
Your explanation/description of Libraries demonstrates some serious
misconceptions. No wonder you're having problems.
One would think that if one removes a file from a Library, then only the
pointer will be deleted, and that the file itself will still exist in
its original folder. That's what many people have thought, and some have
reported here, with some consternation, that it's not so. A folder added
by the user is not actually deleted, but items within that folder can be
deleted. That's a design bug: no file or subfolder in a Library, at any
level of the hierarchy, should be deleted from its original location.
Have you ever used Windows Explorer on a non-Library folder? Were you
equally confused? While I'm at it, have you ever used Windows Explorer on a
Library folder? It should have taken less than a minute to figure out how
they work.
Reread the Help: "But unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations." But if it gathers files, it must be a
folder...
I say again, have you ever used Windows Explorer to view a Library folder? I
don't mean just reading and re-reading the Help file, but actually taking a
few seconds to experiment. It shouldn't take longer than that to figure out
the whole concept.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top