Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Stephen
Posts: 663
Joined: 01 Oct 14 10:15

Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Stephen » 15 Mar 16 16:16

Just recently I discovered the recommendation NOT to enter keywords in the keywords fields, but to user the Assign Label function for that. The theory being, that when right-click saving the metadata to file, the labels would be added to the keywords fields and then show us what data is actually in the file. However, today I discover that not all labels ARE transferred to the keyword fields. Could I being doing something wrong?
Never say never change, but using Mac since 2005. Photo Supreme 3.3.0.2605. I endorse the interoperability of files between applications and systems.

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Mike Buckley » 15 Mar 16 16:35

Right click a catalog label that is not being embedded as a keyword in the file. Select Edit Label Details or Details, depending on whether you are working in the Assign panel or the Catalog display mode, respectively. Open the Metadata Settings panel. Make sure Create keyword for this label is selected. If either of the other two parameters is selected, the keyword will not be created.

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Mike Buckley » 15 Mar 16 16:47

One other thought: Also check the Write Settings in Preferences. Make sure the Keywords Processing is NOT set to Do not modify keywords. I doubt that this is the issue, though it's important to check it.

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 16:53

Also: private labels are per default never written to the file...
Frank

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Mike Buckley » 15 Mar 16 17:08

fbungarz wrote:Also: private labels are per default never written to the file
Just for clarification, that has to do with the configuration explained in my first post. It isn't a separate setting that I know of.

Stephen
Posts: 663
Joined: 01 Oct 14 10:15

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Stephen » 15 Mar 16 19:20

A brief review shows a discrepancy in Place Names. It appears that Photo Supreme assumes that Place Name labels should not be given keywords by default!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's NO PROBLEM of course, it just means that all place names need to be manually adjusted and over 80,000 images re-synced!

I think warning is due here! I prefer to concentrate on f-stops and not on f-software.
Never say never change, but using Mac since 2005. Photo Supreme 3.3.0.2605. I endorse the interoperability of files between applications and systems.

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Mike Buckley » 15 Mar 16 19:49

Mike Buckley wrote:
fbungarz wrote:Also: private labels are per default never written to the file
Just for clarification, that has to do with the configuration explained in my first post. It isn't a separate setting that I know of.
I see that there actually is a separate setting that makes a top-line category a Private category. All catalog labels in that hierarchy will also be private and not written to the file.

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 19:52

Hi Stephen,
not sure I understand. All my place names are written as keywords without a problem.
Perhaps that has to do with you you have set up your read sync preferences - GEO location processing?
I have that option set to none because I prefer to manage geolocations myself instead of having some automatic processing applied. So, I am not so sure what these settings actually do.

Also note that your labels themselves can be configured differently: you can configure a label that it automatically assigns its parent.
You have a label hierarchy like this:
"Siegburg - Rhein-Sieg Kreis - Nordrhein-Westfalen - Germany - Europe - Places"

If the label is configured not to write also the parent labels, only one keyword will be written into the simple keyword field (dc:subject): "Siegburg"
Siegburg | Rhein-Sieg Kreis | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Germany | Europe
Depending on your preferences (if you have hierarchical keywords selected) also only one keyword will be written into the lightroom keyword field (lr:hierarchicalSubject): "Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis |Siegburg".

If you configure the label to also assign parents, five separate keywords will be written into dc:subject: "Siegburg", "Rhein-Sieg Kreis", "Nordrhein-Westfalen", "Germany", and "Europe".

And five kewords into lr:hierarchicalSubject:
"Places | Europe",
"Places | Europe | Germany",
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen",
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis",
and
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis |Siegburg".

Does that not work for you?

Frank

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 19:53

I see that there actually is a separate setting that makes a top-line category a Private category. All catalog labels in that hierarchy will also be private and not written to the file.
I was talking about that one. If I remember correctly IDI only has the option to set a whole keyword category as private. In PSu you can apparently also select a single keyword itself to be private.

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Mike Buckley » 15 Mar 16 20:03

Regarding Frank's discussion of settings and the results: My labels are configured not to write parent labels and my Preference settings are configured not to write parent labels and are configured to write hierarchical keywords. The results are simple keywords written into the simple keyword field (dc:subject) and the the hierarchy is written into the lightroom keyword field (lr:hierarchicalSubject). That's different than my understanding of what he describes, though he didn't mention the Preference setting regarding parent labels.

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 20:15

Mike:
it is exactly the same as what I describe.
All I am saying is: Stephen might think some keywords are missing because he uses simple keywords and has the parents not written (ignoring the fact that the parents will be there in the hierarchical keywords field)...

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 20:15

PS (a bit off-topic):
In the past, using both hierarchical and delimited (not simple!) keywords I never used "automatically assign parents". The keywords contained all information and I considered assigning the parents as redundant because the keywords contained their parents. Moving to simple keywords, I am no longer so sure. IO still do not quite see the logic in abandoning delimited keywords. It seems it comes at the price of loosing information in the simple keywords field (Dc:subject) or duplicating redundant information in the hierarchical keywords (lr:hierarchicalSubject).
This really seems rather counter-intuitive!

In the above example:
A single keyword like "Siegburg" conveys almost no information. Hardly anyone will know that this small city lies in Germany. People might even mistake it for an old-fashioned person's name.
On the other hand, if change my default configuration of keywords to be written with their parents to address this deficiency then the consequence is a rather unwieldy duplication of redundant hierarchical keywords, i.e., what is the benefit of writing five hierarchical keywords to lr:hierarchicalSubject:
"Places | Europe",
"Places | Europe | Germany",
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen",
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis",
and
"Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis |Siegburg" ???

Simply "Places | Europe | Germany | Nordrhein-Westfalen | Rhein-Sieg Kreis |Siegburg" would be quite enough.

Also, setting keywords to be written as simple keywords has another significant disadvantage: If I configure these keywords to be read and merged with my existing catalog labels all these keywords are being duplicated under Miscallaeneous. It means in order not to have the "Miscallaeneous" category being populated (in effect creating redundant keyword duplicates) I essentially have to turn keyword reading off altogether. This does not make much sense, if I occasionally import files that actually contain keywords already...

I think after testing simple keywords for some time I really cannot see any logic in using them and will likely turn delimited keywords on again. Is there ANY good reason (apart from the fact that XMP specifications "prescribe" simple keywords) to use them?

Stephen
Posts: 663
Joined: 01 Oct 14 10:15

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Stephen » 15 Mar 16 20:34

@Frank
Thanks, but I don't use GEO location processing and currently just need flat keywords. Besides, I thought that Hert recommended not to use the scheme you propose.

So to get back on theme again, I am not a librarian, although I do not want to offend those who are ;-)

So how do you verify the differences between the number of labels and the number of keywords? I am having to go through this image by image, switching from the Assign Label view to the Details view. This is crazy. To pre-emt those who might be tempted to say that I did not set things up correctly... where were the hints to the "click here boxes"? The more time I spend cataloging, the more problems occur! This is crazy and is wearing me down. Maybe light room or soemthing else...
Never say never change, but using Mac since 2005. Photo Supreme 3.3.0.2605. I endorse the interoperability of files between applications and systems.

fbungarz
Posts: 1628
Joined: 08 Dec 06 5:03
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by fbungarz » 15 Mar 16 21:24

So how do you verify the differences between the number of labels and the number of keywords?
You simply don't. There is no need to verify. Once you have a configuration that works for you simply trust the software to do it right.
Don't make this more complicated on yourself than it is. Honestly: In your case I would simply keep the default configuration and turn automatic writing on and not worry too much about the rest.
The data will be written, the labels are there and in one way or another will be in your files. But once you start playing with different configurations things easily become complicated, because then you start writing things differently and understanding what is going on can be very confusing...

Stephen
Posts: 663
Joined: 01 Oct 14 10:15

Re: Logic in prefering data entry via labels over keywords

Post by Stephen » 15 Mar 16 22:18

fbungarz wrote:
So how do you verify the differences between the number of labels and the number of keywords?
You simply don't... you simply trust the software to do it right.
Trust is good, but control is better. I think that is a German expression ;-)
fbungarz wrote:understanding what is going on can be very confusing...
Yes, since day 1.
Never say never change, but using Mac since 2005. Photo Supreme 3.3.0.2605. I endorse the interoperability of files between applications and systems.

Post Reply