Upgrade StorageTag window displays shortened tags
Hi,
in zotero 2.0b7 the tag windows shortens the tags to about 25 characters. I'm using a kind of structured tags, which could be realy long (more than 25 characters). Is there an possibility to display the tags in full lengths as before (2.0b6.5) ?
in zotero 2.0b7 the tag windows shortens the tags to about 25 characters. I'm using a kind of structured tags, which could be realy long (more than 25 characters). Is there an possibility to display the tags in full lengths as before (2.0b6.5) ?
This discussion has been closed.
I think, there should be an option to truncate or not to truncate tags, as you have suggested.
In the truncated state, it should also be possible to see the full length, when the tag is selected in any kind.
The best solution for me would be, if there exist a solution to display structured tags (as a workaround for hierarchical tags) like a tree (which can be collapse or expanded). My structered tags have the form ">endoscopy>application>laparoscopy" , ">endoscopy>application>notes".... This is the reason, why I have to handle long tags and the very specific information is in the last part of the tag. Structured tags have always a delimiting character, in my case ">". This delimiter could be used for tag-tree generating. (I know, hierarchical tags are out of this topic and is often discussed else, but I want to mention it here, because it the reason for my problem)
What do you do if you want to see all your entries tagged 'application' or 'notes' regardless of the field (say, endoscopy, angiography, — I'm making this up obviously)? It seems you can't right now. If you just used 'endoscopy' and 'application' as separate tags, it would be a matter of selecting them together to display the intersection, which would be the same as your single >endoscopy>application tag while offering more flexibility.
If you do indeed use 'application' and 'notes' across multiple fields or techniques, note that your current system doesn't capture the crucial similarity between >endoscopy>application and >angiography>application. If this doesn't seem to make sense because you don't use the subtags 'application' and 'notes' beyond 'endoscopy', it may be that you're using tags for something that collections (with their inherent hierarchical structure) are better set to do.
your are right in some sense. Sometime it would be easier using "flat" tags and tag intersection for filtering. Your are also right, that I use hierarchical tags like a "folder" structure. You are also right, that splitting the complex hierarchical tag into single tags, could be a useful alternative (sometimes).
The Problems arise then, when different people should tag items in nearly the same way to generate a common knowledge base for say our company. Normally users use folders for basic structuring and tags are used only for the high specific aspects.
Different people have different opinons what are specific aspects and what not. An expert in "laparoscopy" do not set the more basic tags like "endoscopy" and "application" to all his documents. So you are not able to use tag-intersection to find all endoscopic>application.
That's the reason I am using as a "workaround" structured tags beside flat tags. It should help, that documents are classified according a "common company wide knowledge tree". (it's not easy to do, but it's the idea I have). I have put all classification information into tags and not into folder, because this information could be exported and transported in nearly every format, whereas folder structuring is only locally. And structuring and taging is done in the same process and tagging is easier as clicking and searching the right folder.
I get some other advantages using structured tags:
- tags are sorted - using the tag search ">endoscopy>application" I have an overview on existing endoscopic applications (in the tag window).
- I use not only one structured tag tree for the knowledge tree. In the same way I use facets like "A:time>YYYY" or A:project>NewProject or A:location>NewCompany...
So I have more structured info in the tag window. If I look i.e >endoscopy>application>laparoscopy, a simple look on one of my facets in the tag window gives an overview which "projects" exist in "laparoscopy", which "locations" are active there (companies, nations, persons are subgroups of them...). Without using structured tags I had the same information, but I get no overview. Tags like Olympus, Storz, Pentax, Siemens do not order properly. They are distributed over the whole tag window. Structuring gives the tags different meanings.
- In the full text search, it is possible to search only by (structured) tags ">endoscopy" or ">laparoscopy" and not the full-text documents, not the title, not the notes,... So I get a high quality search according "my" classification. Naturally it is also possible to search really all by using simply "endoscopy".
This is my way, to tag and structure things. I have to mention, that it is not easy to get a "common company wide knowledge tree", nor that every users use it correctly. But without them, I think, it is impossible to generate very important overviews on different topics simply by tagging it.
Therefore it think, that a better handling of structured or hierarchical tags could improve zotero a lot.
SiGi
I only like to remember to my initial request of this discussion.
Is there meanwhile a solution to show the full-length of the tags in the tag-selector.
SiGi