Ok, I’m trying to move the ball forward on this front, so let me try do my part by answering your question directly. Thirty days ago, you wrote:
As I said in this post that I typed up for you last February,
“2. Fix and clarify MN folders & categories. Right now it’s glitchy and frankly confusing. No one is clear on how MN’s folder systems is supposed to work, and so there’s a chaotic and problematic file organizational structure in MN (or lack thereof). As a result, many of us have learned to only open files in MN the moment we’re ready to annotate them – otherwise they’ll get lost in a disordered list of files that we’re unable to group and As part of this, we’d like to simple folder / organizational taxonomy in which we’re able to group files by subject AND prioritize them.”
So, I think I’ve already laid out a suggested approach for you. Perhaps thing of categories as subject tags for MN files and folders as a kind of smart folder organizational approach, sorted by project and/or priority (as determined by the user). That’s how I’d approach it.
BTW, I see one problem w/ MN’s approach to organization: it divides documents and notebooks, which creates all kinds of layers of confusion. I haven’t yet understood why there are two different formats, partly because there’s no manual that clearly defines the different function intentions (insofar as I can tell).
Actually, I see another problem, w/ MN’s approach to folder/category organization… Whenever I import new files in MN, they’re created as documents. And so, I organize the categories in MN’s category section. But then when I open these files in Study, and convert them as notebooks, I have to re-create another level of category organization. I don’t see what the purpose of this is, but I might be overlooking what MN developers were imagining.
Hope this is helpful, and can move the ball forward. Let me know if you’d like me to clarify or answer any questions.
Thanks!