Keywords on entering new notes

When entering new notes it would be very handy to be able to enter keywords as well.

At the moment we have to save the note and then edit it to add the keywords. It is a lot easier to add trhe keywords at the time of writing the note.

Can the keywords field please be added to the new notes windows.

Thnak you


Stephen, I would suggest to

Stephen, I would suggest to use the Categories field instead of Keywords field. You wrote another post asking the difference between the keywords field and the categories field. I can no longer find that post. Did you delete it? I will answer it here. The keywords field is for storing keywords assigned by others. When you download references from a bibliographic database, mostly likely it will have author assigned or editors assigned keywords list. This is less common for notes. When you need to organize references or notes, the categories field should be used instead.

Hi Paul Thank you for your

Hi Paul
Thank you for your response.

Yes I deleted the previous query as I found a solution that was posted by you earlier. It is copied here:
Keywords and categories
Fri, 02/23/2007 - 22:50 — Paul Chen
Separate each keyword with “; “. For example: “Synthesis; HIV; Nucleoside Analogs; Boronic”. Use the Keywords field to store keywords that you want to associate with the reference. You can restrict a search to just the Keywords field in "Advanced Search", "Dynamic Folder", etc. Each keyword in this field is also entered into an index table so users can browse a lookup list of keywords and their associated references. This index table also helps users to enter keyword in a consistent way by suggesting existing keywords while you are typing.
Each category is also separated by "; ". Each category is surrounded by "_". For example: "_State Politics_; _Presidential Campaign_". Categories and keywords fields have similar forms. Keywords field is used to enter words and phrases about the reference. Categories field is used for tagging references in order to classify records, organize records by projects, etc.
(my bolding of relevant sentences)

I found this very helpful and logical. It seperates the two functions of formal structuring of references & notes as opposed to entering more specific descriptive words and phrases that would help in retrieval of particular references/notes. I cenrtianly think that haveing multiple ways of finding data is very useful.

I use a set structure with a limited number of specifically defined categories (ie seperate words) to keep the structure/categorizing managable but use a significant number of non specific keywords to facilitate retrieval. By combining the two functions the number of category words becomes to great and masks/diminishes its utilitarian value in structuring.

For notes - structuring is not as critical as retrieval.

Your description above in response to my query seems to be contrary to what you wrote in 2007 so I am a little confused. I generally find that the imported keywords are inconsistent and often over used and hence of little value to me. That is why I now use the field as per your 2007 advice and edit the imported keywords.

But it does seem to me that being able to use two fields, one for structuring and one for a more flexible search seems of value.

Is it a difficult task to add a keywords input option to the new note window? Especially since there is a keywords field associated with each note anyway.



PS the more I use BS and become more profiecient with the various options themore I like it. You have done a great job.

When Biblioscape was first

When Biblioscape was first built, there is only the Keywords field. Categories field was added later for users who want to separate user's keywords from author or publisher supplied keywords. To me, this is the main difference between these two fields. In later versions, we tried to make categories field useful not only for retrieving records, but also organize records. We didn't include the keywords field in the new note window because we advise users to keep user supplied keywords in the Categories field. Thanks, Paul

Stephen explained very well

Stephen explained very well why it is not possible to rely on Categories for all types of organization. Maybe if you would implement non-exclusive category groups or some such. At the moment, especially given the history and years of commitment before categories/tags, it is very useful to have three parallel and user-controlled systems:


I also find that imported keywords are messy and too generic. In fact, I do not share the excitement about importing data from online or from PDFs. This data is always messy, often incomplete and erroneous. Needs editing and it is easier to make a mistake or not notice something when workign with imports. I never use Quick Search (it is almost never correct) or PDF metadata extracts. I do import from libraries using Z3950 but always edit the results manually.

I also try to limit the number of categories because if there are too many it is taking too long to navigate (I have too many already - I wish it would be possible to display them all in a detachable window).

So, I think access to the organizational systems should be universal across modules. And so should be the search functions.

You are right about the

You are right about the metadata imports. I do import from databases but I do so 1 at a time now and edit. The keywords are rubbish and are not usable. That is why I now always delete them and use my own. Given that key words are one of the main search tools for BS it makes more sense to put this as a primary data entry field in each area, ie notes. However when I first started using BS I did not know how to use it properly or the consequences of my choices re categories etc. As a consequence I still have a lot of clean up to do -- including junking the key words from files imported in the early days of my using BS.

That the keywords were orginally used to capture the imported data is now irrelevant. The world has moved on.

I am a strong supporter of BS because 1. I have a lot invested re time and 2. I have seen it grow and seen Paul as a person open to ideas. However there is a need to keep listening to users and appreciating that they will find ways of using the product not necessarily conceived of or understood by its creator. There in lies the development potential.

I have stuggled at times to understand how BS works so I can get the best out of it for my purposes. The manuals are scanty and the forum, while useful is mainly about bugs or basic questions.

Suggestion: I would think a user forum about how to use BS would be great. FAQs could be developed for newbies and experienced users could share their techniques and the way they use the product. I am sure this would be of a great value to users of all experience levels. It could also be a useful place to discuss ideas for improvements. This approach is now used in a lot of places and I am sure would be appreciated by BSusers.



Stephen, at the forums list

Stephen, at the forums list page, there is a forum called Non-technical that can be used for the purpose you suggested. I would be happy to join others there.