Gumroad will pay you via direct deposit or paypal. You can create discounts and coupon codes — and you can even have affiliates! Another new option to sell your meditation or audio files is Soundwise. This service allows you to securely sell and deliver your audio products to your users. This is great if you want to monetize and sell a private podcast, create audiobooks or deliver your product or coaching materials via audio.
Thank you for this great information. Do you have any advice if you want to add soothing background music? Where to go to get this type of music licensable?
How to play the background music in the meditation? This is brilliant Michelle. So helpful. Can I ask if you have any info on how to actually use the background music from elements. Many thanks x. Hi Nicola — Not sure about your question — but I would use it as a background track for the meditation.
Great info, so helpful thank you so much. I just wanted to ask if there were any pre-recorded meditations that you can buy. It can prove quite costly to buy or use a voice over. Any advice be great. Thank you. Hi Brian — Why not do the voiceovers yourself? Thank you so much for this!! If you want to add in music do you recommend making the audio into an MP3 and THEN go to the link you provided other for music and then add the music?
Or do you choose your music and then mAke your audio? With audacity, you can have multi-layer tracks so you can add things together. Thank you for the info! Do you have a recording or part of a recording you can send so I can heard the sound quality of Audio Technica ATR ?
Hi Rebecca — All of my latest videos were done with it. Hope that helps! Thank you very much for this information. This is quite helpful. I so appreciate being led step by step. This information is so helpful, thank you! Is there an easier software that you could recommend? Hi Jane — glad you found it useful!
I might search on youtube for tutorials — they can be super useful to walk through how to use software. Just wondering if you have a script for editing and or recording on Garage Band? Thanks so much for your help. Hello, Thank you for this post! Can you tell me how to add Ocean waves or rainfalls visuals with the vocals? Then you can export the file as an. You can also use an app like headliner that can combine audio with video files.
You said in the article that there are a million ways to sell a finished product. It would not happen - uniqueness would be enforced by the file name and its set of tags. Only one match could exist. The difference between tags and hierarchies is this: if you don't know what you're looking for, hierarchy can guide you.
Another key difference is that a hierarchical or positional attribute is acquired inherently by a document's position within that hierarchy or location. In both cases, the hierarchy is inherently positional , affords locality , and guides both the reader and the document by asserting that locality inherently.
If you're in a place, then that place gives nearness or farness from objects. If you're an object, you're in some location inherently. Tags, in this sense, are placeless, and don't provide attributes of or guidance to nearness. At least not without some additional mechanism. That's just bad UX of the tag browsers. If that's the case, how specifically would you improve that UX?
Have the option to view the tagged items in a tree, which is dynamically created from the tags. For example my audio player does just that, e. Also known as "facets". Progressively "drilling down" is super low-hanging fruit with regards to tag-based organization, it's seriously neglected. Thanks, that's I also agree that the lack of drill-down on tag-based organisation It's sufficiently valuable that you'd expect this to be part of basic implementation libraries by now.
How are relationships between tags determined or specified? A tagging system is flat by default. Though that makes rendering the tree somewhat easier You don't need to define relationships between tags. Like in my audio player the songs have certain tags which don't have anything to do with each other and yet the player can create tree like structures from them. And what is the player's method? In the case of conceptual tags I'm not sure why you think there's magic involved.
Say you have songs with three sort of tags, album, genre and title. Edit: In fact since the player allows for multi-value tags, items can even appear multiple times in the tree, e.
The point to my question wasn't that there is magic involved, but to ask what the specific method was. Maybe I should have made that clearer, though I was hoping it would be obvious. This needn't always be the case: multiple artists might play the same song, the same song might be on multiple albums, song title itself does not necessarily imply either artist or album.
Though in the simple case it does. And what of fusion or crossover works is DNA's remix of "Tom's Diner" folk-rock, a capella, or trip-hop? It's not clear and it can be the other way around. You can also ask the player to list the genre as a subclass of titles. It'll be just a less useful representation, because the first level usually holds almost as much entries as there are songs, since titles are often unique. It can be all of those, like I said you can have multi-value tags.
Then this song would show up three times in a tree with a genre level. Digging into method, then: more-frequently-occurring tags are presumed to be more general than less-frequently-appearing tags?
If the latter, it's not clear to me how the tags are directed, other than in the sense of an RDF triple's subject, predicate, and object. No, all tags are handled in the same way by the player. It's completely up to the user to specify the hierarchy in which tags can be browsed. The player then builds the tree dynamically.
I'm kind of lost here, since I'm failing to see where the confusion comes from. Also, I'm not a native English speaker, so I might be missing something or my explanations just aren't well enough. So let's try this again with some simple pseudo code. Tags here are nothing but key:value pairs associated to audio files. How many tags are in your system? The number of tags should be more or less similar to the number of non-leaf nodes in a hierarchy, or else you aren't capturing the same information.
Any tag that applies to more than half of the files is probably useless. On my blog, the tags "blog" and "technology" are definitely useless. That's fewer than entries and already it has cruft. Were people consistent when they added tags? Does your system suggest tags automatically? Is this actually a full-text search minus stop words? Is there a librarian who cleans up after you and merges tags that have the same meanings? Would the full-text search be more useful than tags? I have this problem in Pocket.
I use I couldn't tell you without downloading my entire archive and doing some magick to count them, as Pocket won't give me a count itself. Pocket lags by well over a minute in even starting to populate my tags list after I enter some text into the field.
It similarly takes several minutes to scroll through the tag list using either the Web client or the Android app. If you'd like another list that has rapid-scannability issues, there's the Library of Congress Subject Headings: These are publicly available. Hierarchies and tags are not an "xor" proposition. I always use both at the same time. Hierarchy gives you a way to organize things according to each others.
I want hierarchy, because if I deal with thing A, I may have then to specifically have a look to child B or C. It helps with context and granularity. While tags allow you to attach multiple categories to things and filter according to that. You can use a hierarchy as a poor man tag, but really, you should use both. He spelled my name wrong and now it's preserved for all posterity. Wildland from architect of QubesOS, blockchain bits are optional is tackling this problem: bottom-up ontology graphs that can be meshed into a global address space, items can appear at multiple places similar to Bear in the hierarchy.
There just needs to be a default view that shows you the most important tags to start from - either by most used files, or largest number of files, or most active recent changes, or as managed by someone. The nice thing about tags is all of those could be top level tabs and you are sailing. Hierarchy allows a simple manual traversal, leading to better discoverability. I've recently built a tagging system based on SKOS [1]. This supports hierarchical as well as associative relationships between tags while not strictly requiring either , as well as ad hoc groups of tags.
While SKOS was intended for more formal vocabularies, I've found its use as a basis for a tagging system makes exploration and navigation of a topic area reasonably organic, as it allows users to specify relationships only as they see as fit and intuitive. Any tag based system should have a breadcrumb function that allows for manual traversal. Finally, a topic I can speak with some authority on. I'm not sure that tags make that much sense as an organizing schema for a filesystem.
It's just too painful for items to not have canonical names. In my original design, a bookmark had a bunch of tags but was keyed on it's canonical URL. Maybe it makes more sense when we're only talking about a user's personal objects rather than the entire filesystem. Tags were mostly a way for a user to mark found things for that user's future self to potentially retrieve.
They end up encoding some combination of the user's internal state and the material of the item being tagged. Different users therefore have different needs - expert users tag things differently than beginners ie "java" vs "programming" - to a beginner there's little distinction between subtypes of programming things. Users tend to tag much more wildly when they are not offered a reference of previously-used tags, as well.
This held strongly enough that much deviation from this was a sure sign of spamming. This is also where tagging falls down - tagging things for retrieval by OTHER people is almost always mis-incentivized and ands up getting spammed to hell. First it was implemented via the OpenMeta [1],[2] and later, by Apple, via Maverick meta tags. I didn't use macOS for a long time now, but when OpenMeta was still active, there were tons of applications, that supported it.
I loved it and miss it badly. The only issue I had with it, was adding all those many tags to your files. Something, I'd like to solve with AI, these days. For me, the best system is a hierarchical file system with meta tags in XATTRS, that also can be used to build hierarchies, if needed. Wasn't this the intent behind Windows Vista - a tag-based DB-as-filesystem with hierarchical paths just one "lens" through which to view the DB?
I use Google Drive this way, largely through search rather than directory-based organization, though I do also employ that for often-used collections.
I like to organize files in a similar way but use spaces in filenames. This is tempting, at least for note taking. They are non-scalable kludges compared to true tagging. As a fan of hierarchies for file organization, and as someone with quite literally thousands of soft links, when I read things like this, I don't know if the person arguing against links has tried this approach.
It works totally fine for me. Yes, with soft links, moving the original file breaks the links. I wrote a fairly simple bash script to automatically fix these for my reference PDF files. It works because each PDF file I save has a unique file name. So figuring out where the links need to point is pretty simple. That makes me a "power user", I guess, but the author is at least at the same level and I think could figure it out.
With respect to the "exponential amount of effort to classify a set of files in multiple ways", I guess the author is referring to navigating the hierarchy to link a file in multiple places? I use tagging at my work, and I personally find scrolling through my list of about tags to be comparable in terms of time to navigating through a hierarchy. The bottleneck is the human. I use hard and soft links mostly the former for files and the latter for directories and I think it works very well in practice despite the theoretical problems brought up.
While we're at it, go beyond overwriting a single content stream per name. VMS had ;version numbered suffixes for versions of each file. Git follows a model where each unique content item is a blob and there are references to it from different names and versions. Lots of 'filesystems' didn't have directories, or did have them but were implemented in a flat structure: mainframe OSes and LAN filesystems like Novell, which I discovered one time when an entire drive got all it's files deleted by some bug.
Then Everything could become your shell The article fails to mention existence of graph databases or graph theory, except for tuple spaces which leads to that direction. With graph databases you can easily and efficiently model any kind of network, including ones that are hierarchical or almost hierarchical by allowing a node to refer to multiple parent nodes instead of one.
My original idea with my bookmark extension Spellbook was this latter kind of graph, and I implemented a prototype called Grimoire using Ruby on Rails and Neo4j graph database that worked very well. The Spellbook currently only allows adding new bookmarks into the hierarchical structure imposed by browser APIs, but features an easy to use search feature to find the right category.
I got the idea for Spellbook, because I was learning programming, but also having some projects that involved quite a bit of research on subjects like audio physics, statistics, data visualisation etc. So, I also see the value in having subcategories in addition to freely formed networks or associations. I also had the idea to apply these kind on ideas about nonhierarchical file organisation to music or photo library organisation, and really wish there was a file system level support.
Just give me files and folders. I remember being impressed with they way extended attributes made the file system and files into a database for any programs that wanted to interact with them. And, I don't know exactly how it worked but the system supported live queries that allowed you to drill down based on the attributes.
MacOS and Windows both created things intended to appear like live queries but they always seemed slower and less elegant. Razengan 16 days ago prev next [—]. For tags I use meta data, which are included as mapped text at the extreme end of many media formats. For example ID3 data on MP3 files. I have found this incredibly helpful for MP3s because I have thousands of them and there are many similar names. Windows Explorer provides columns for this data in its detailed file system view not by default which is incredibly helpful and trivial to customize.
For everything else folders are enough. I have hundreds of movies on a hard disk and yet folders are enough. When I do need more the data I want is generated by the file system: last modified, file size, and so forth.
What improves file usability the most for me is network access by meta data. For example Windows Explorer and OSX Finder are nice but I would rather have the exact same interface on the same local machine for a bunch of remote machines regardless of their file system or operating system. Then copy to a different machine is just drag and drop from one window onto another in an application that looks like some local OS, that windowing interface needs to allow sorting and filtering and search by meta data just like Windows Explorer.
Having an application that does this for me has been great. If you're going to use a non-standard tagging system, it's best to have a backup. For example, Gmail uses tags instead of folders, and to most uses they seem to be folders. It's possible to not even be aware of this difference. Sometimes gmail loses all your tags. Could you imagine if all your files ended up in the root? Also consider how you would back up such a schema in a traditional file system. The same is happening in webshops.
Products can be assigned to hierarchies categories but in shops like Amazon it is obvious it is more like tagging. In ecommerce, products are often presented to the shopper by search facets, so kind of all of the above applies. And amazon thanks to that is opaque, I never look around for stuff, just search and find or not. They could have made something better where you can discover other stuff. What are folders, if not tags with nesting capabilities?
Tags are superfluous if you have a good search engine. Hierarchy isn't. Tags or other metadata are: - A controlled vocabulary. This addresses the problem of numerous terms referring to the same concept, the same terms applying to different concepts, disagreements on spelling or charactersets, and standardisation or cross-references between multiple terms. This addresses the problem of keyword-stuffing. Its place of publication, earlier or later versions, cultural context, citations, amongst others.
Tags themselves are not hierarchical. Search is not introspective or contextual. Tomte 16 days ago root parent prev next [—]. Tags could be a controlled vocabulary, but in almost all cases they are free-for-all. Archive of Our Own has an interesting scheme, where authors tag their pieces freely, and volunteers behind the scenes enrich those pieces with tags that are indeed from a controlled vocabulary.
They also do other mind-boggling stuff: in those tags they encode all kinds of information, so that you can search for a Kirk-Spock love story where violence is involved and Spock is dominant, and so on…. In that sense, tags are, even if not highly structured, a controlled vocabulary.
I'm not referring to tagging that's provided by a publishing site itself, though yes, that's a fairly common practice. Tagging by a skilled third-party curator or librarian can of course be excellent. Yeah, tagging really seems like the job of a file manager and indexer rather than a file system. That seems like an easy way to get everything we want without rewriting billions of lines of code that deal with hierarchies. Good ideas, but there are a few things wrong with this.
First, we forget that filesystems are not hierarchies, they are graphs, whether DAG's or not. Here's how you do it: 1. Organize your files in the hierarchy you want them in. Hard-link all files you want to tag under each tag directory that apply.
For extra credit, create a soft link pointing to the same file, but with a well-known name. This allows you to use the standard filesystem tools to get all files under a specific tag. Of course, I'm no filesystem expert, so I probably got a few things wrong.
I welcome smarter people to tell me how I am wrong. Does this only give you one level of tags? It does, unfortunately. But you probably could implement finding something with two tags with some command-line fu. With this you can't easily search for files that have multiple tags, the whole point of tags is that you can use them to find set intersections. The inability to define multi-tag searches intersections on Pocket is Article roach motel is more like it. Though the roaches can escape via bitrot, and often do.
See the comment I made to the sibling comment. You forgot step 6. Convince everyone and everything else who has write access to the file system to follow suit. Fair enough, although in my mind, I only care about tagging for my own files. Sorry, probably stupid example, but hierarchial has been there from the begining I still remember how limiting Apple ][ DOS was without folders, and how cool ProDos when it introduced them.
ReleaseCandidat 16 days ago parent next [—]. And that every sibling must have a distinct 'name' the cat images in the article. Now you would need to support this for "tagging" too. Not sure even how. It does not translate well I think. Obviously I'm just complaining here, on the side of artists I think it was much easier for them and for me actually, when comes to my own photos to find things by tags - be it automatical, date, time, is it a document, location, etc.
Tarsul 16 days ago prev next [—]. I'd imagine tagging all files and using those tags for playlists would be a good way to do it. Does anyone do something like this or similar and can give pointers? Use MusicBrainz Picard. The MusicBrainz database is probably the best there is, and it does a good job of automatically tagging your music.
You can configure Picard to arrange files and rename them however you want. It has some simple scripting functionality so you can name things conditionally based on the presence or absence of metadata, etc. Picard is extensible with Python.
There's some existing plugins for generating playlist files. A complementary alternative I'd suggest is beets[1], a front-end agnostic CLI tagging utility that also matches your files against the MusicBrainz database and can both correct the ID3 tags and maintain a directory hierarchy based on those tags.
The biggest shortcoming of the MusicBrainz database I've found so far, however, is genre tags. Most releases seem to have only one or a handful of genres listed with no consistent genre hierarchy convention, but I've been experimenting with an extensions that pulls genre tags from discogs.
Run an old version of iTunes in a VM? The column browser is still one of the generally best media browsing interfaces I've ever dealt with. I guess I'll need to blog about it because I can't find any information online, but still nothing has beat Sony's SonicStage, which is by most accounts very annoying proprietary software for working with minidisc players that want ATRAC encoding, but also included an excellent tag navigator that worked like so: While playing any song in your library, you could display a graph view which showed the song center screen, and radially arranged spokes enumerating what the song was tagged with, "rock", "instrumental", "upbeat" etc, and when you clicked that tag, it would become center-screen and all the songs with that tag would be radially arranged around that tag.
Last I checked there were. I've been thinking about this a lot in the past and also think that tags would indeed make the most sense, at least for a new type of "desktop UI" which is created around the idea to quickly listing and finding files by typing tag names instead of an actual "desktop metapher".
I had this idea long ago but at the same time I worry about things too fluid. Both for performance and both for information efficiency. Tree can be seen as a preemptive good enough tag order. Some obvious dimensions like category, time will always be of use. Specific to photos, and most commonly scanned photos is the problem of "approximate" or "uncertain" dates.
I'd love to hear of ways to leverage tags to do this. There's also the syntax of tag separation inside EXIF. The various systems can't entirely agree what notation to use.
It would be quite an evil hack of a common fixed timestamp format. That's very clever. I thought about using alternate daytime fields to signal the degree of uncertainty as a magnitude to the declared date Time, which then becomes the centre. ExifTool handles zeroes in datetime strings I had to add that support to PhotoStructure a couple months ago!
I'd also really like a way to identify very-rough dating. A custom? If you've got a suggestion, I'm interested: PhotoStructure has a ton of users with this same issue. I prefer the custom tag approach, remembering that precision may go to day or month or year independently: I may know its easter, but not which year the wedding is, if you follow my reasoning, or know its , but not which day of which month. That said, in month digits you have and in day digits you have as well as 00 in each field.
So if you find yourself wanting to overload a field, there is one special value in each of month and day to flag one thing, and then 6 bits in each other field than year, to signal specific things. Agreed with not overloading fields: that way leads to madness. I really like the LOC standard: it follows already-used conventions for inexact dates. Thanks for the pointer! My solution is that all content goes into a new folder. Tagging assumes user will always have the ability to type or input the file tag metadata.
Hierarchy allows finding files by just clicking up or down the hierarchy tree and double clicking the file s. I've been doing a hybrid approach for a hypertext system I built. All documents have a canonical position in a filesystem, but are arbitrarily "taggable". Tags themselves are also files, but the property of "having a tag" is encoded as one file linking to another.
The only difference between a tag and say an article is that the tags are in a different directory not that they need to be, but it makes it easier to parse as a human. All documents automatically list internal backreferences, which means the tag files become useful for navigation. I still name files and directories meaningfully, but I don't worry about the hierarchy at all. Then when I want to get something, I just search parts of the terms I want and see the matching paths instantly.
Using the filesystem hierarchically now feels painfully slow and awkward. I do this with fd and ripgrep, which also lets me do full-text search through the files themselves. My filesystem has become much flatter and coarser-grained; just a few very large categories. In some cases it'd just bring garbage, i. I'm saying I can't think of a scenario where it'd be mostly helpful but that don't know whether there are other scenarios where there are such scenarios where tags are better.
Ah, it's that time of the year again. I see this blogpost shared and discussed year after year. If only the HFS and the OS using it would consistently yield the documents I recently used, across all file system dialogues, that alone would be a huge benefit for me. Apart from that I'd love to see a tag based file system. Would use. ChrisArchitect 15 days ago prev next [—]. Anything new here? I guess because it's more text document format dependent. Kalanos 16 days ago prev next [—]. Tags are the lazy man's schema.
I remember trying to use tags to tag my media collection a decade ago and miserably failing. Some really interesting ideas in a well organized article. MS was going to use a relational filesystem at one time. And then we should talk about categories and subcategories, relations or associations instead of tags, which to many people seem to represent a flat namespace of tags.
And here's some emails etc. Sorry, my stuff needs rewriting and updating but I'm not in the position to do it at present. If there's anything you would like to ask about please do. Hacker News new past comments ask show jobs submit. Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies nayuki. TheCoelacanth 16 days ago root parent prev next [—] The physical shelves in a library only serve a single, small geographic area, not the whole world.
The following examples are valid ways to mark up a boolean attribute:. To be clear, the values " true " and " false " are not allowed on boolean attributes. To represent a false value, the attribute has to be omitted altogether. Indicates whether controls in this form can by default have their values automatically completed by the browser. Specifies the URL of an image file. Background color of the element.
The border width. From the Media Capture specification , specifies a new file can be captured. This attribute gives the absolute or relative URL of the directory where applets'. A value associated with http-equiv or name depending on the context. Specifies the Content Security Policy that an embedded document must agree to enforce upon itself. Indicates that the track should be enabled unless the user's preferences indicate something different. Defines the text direction. Defines the content type of the form data when the method is POST.
The enterkeyhint specifies what action label or icon to present for the enter key on virtual keyboards. The attribute can be used with form controls such as the value of textarea elements , or in elements in an editing host e. If this attribute is specified, it overrides the enctype attribute of the button's form owner. If this attribute is specified, it overrides the method attribute of the button's form owner. If this attribute is specified, it overrides the novalidate attribute of the button's form owner.
If this attribute is specified, it overrides the target attribute of the button's form owner. Prevents rendering of given element, while keeping child elements, e. Often used with CSS to style a specific element.
0コメント