Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Rec'd characters for nested keywords?
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 11, 2020, 05:57:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2904 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  Lightroom
| | |-+  Rec'd characters for nested keywords?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Rec'd characters for nested keywords?  (Read 3382 times)
frankgindc
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


View Profile Email
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:31:17 PM »

Hi,

I'm using LR2 and have hierarchical (nested) keywords.  Nothing as complex as many of the other DAM users (just about 20 parent keywords, at present).   

My quick question is this:  Does anyone rec'd any particular nomenclature for the parent keywords?   

I remember someone (somewhere) suggesting to use a symbol like ">" in the keyword -- e.g., ">Parent1", ">Parent2", etc.   The advantage to that is that in LR all the parents will then sort to the top of the keywords field and you can keep good track of new keywords that accidentally mushroom outside of the heirarchy (this seems to happen alot with my own keyword entry).  I've been using that technique and it works farily well, but it seems that now LR is adding a ">" to denote when a keyword is a parent so....things are starting to look a little crazy.

Probably more info than you all need but, in short, does anyone have a parent keyword naming/nomenclature system that seems to work well and will work over the long hall?   Or should I avoide this "prefix" type of approach altogether?

Thanks,
Frank
Logged
johnbeardy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1813


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2008, 12:55:34 PM »

Personally, I wouldn't waste effort adding such keywords to the list - it's always struck me as too clever by half, and confusing data entry and organization. Sooner or later they'll get into your files or you'll stop using them and they'll then confuse you when you find they're still there. Remember in LR that there is now a filter at the top of the keywords list, and it really helps manage long lists.

The > symbols are so you can type dog>animals and that will create the animals tree with dog holding onto a branch (knew there was a pun in there). But I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to type it in and it becomes one keyword.

I'd also ask if you've considered using smart collections to group keywords. For example, I have a wedding collection set, below which is a smart collection that looks for keywords wedding and children, so I immediately gather all pictures of kids at weddings without the pain of children being a branch in a wedding keyword tree, and also a branch under family, a branch under portraits etc. Just a thought.

John
Logged
frankgindc
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2008, 05:22:32 AM »

I dunno, it seeems pretty simple:   only used for the top tier parent keywords, not down through the nests.   A quick glance at the "collapsed" keyword list shows if there are any keywords that weren't nested (like if "U2" is a top tier parent when it should be under ">Bands"), or if I've accidentally created/misspelled a new parent keyword that I didn't want (llike, "Lanscapes" or something).

Frank

p.s. I like your idea of using smart collections for grouping photos for specific and ongoing purposes -- and can see how that type of filtering might render heirarchal keywording as unnecessary in most cases for me, but I want some sort of (simple) structure that would be easily exportable to another DAM option in the future.
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 06:20:06 PM »

Frank,
I agree with John that the symbol is probably not necessary.  I'd prefer to use top-level designations that mean something.  "Bands" could be inside "Subjects".  As distinct from, say "Clients"

If you need to resort to tricks to sort the top-level organization, it probably needs to be consolidated.

Peter
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!