Lightroom (LR) Keywording Structure

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3657438
HEY!!!!

Actually, I'm trying spouting my complaints about this KW useability thing every chance I get, in the hopes that someone from Adobe might actually see it and do something about it.

I'm sure Al and I CAN'T be the only ones out there that see the value of that.

Yeah I here you. Where is Victoria? Did she abandon us?

Well I'm afraid I have to abandon this worthy fight for a couple of weeks from tomorrow! Holidays Yee hah!

I really can't see too much of a problem but then it may depend on how one has set up ones keywords.

I have a set that begins with [PERSONAL] and contains a family tree type hierarchy with family names - these are all set to NOT export and all names have capital first letter. I also use this to keyword images that are been sent to stock agencies etc., so I can quickly check to see what's where. Again, these do NOT export.

My other keyword hierarchies are set to export and contain the general concepts, characteristics, categories etc. with all words in lower case.

This way I can find any photo by using the find function.
Text: Keywords
Rule: Contains All

I just type the keywords, separated by commas and the images with those keywords appear in the grid.

The other rules work. Its easy to find images without keywords. Text: Keywords Rule: Are Empty

The only thing I would like to see added is the ability to include synonyms in the search.
I use these to add the different terms used for the same object in different countries. footpath -> sidewalk , track -> trail and the different spellings light -> lite, colour -> color.

jbimages wrote in post #3659519
I really can't see too much of a problem but then it may depend on how one has set up ones keywords.

I have a set that begins with [PERSONAL] and contains a family tree type hierarchy with family names - these are all set to NOT export and all names have capital first letter. I also use this to keyword images that are been sent to stock agencies etc., so I can quickly check to see what's where. Again, these do NOT export.

My other keyword hierarchies are set to export and contain the general concepts, characteristics, categories etc. with all words in lower case.

This way I can find any photo by using the find function.
Text: Keywords
Rule: Contains All

I just type the keywords, separated by commas and the images with those keywords appear in the grid.

The other rules work. Its easy to find images without keywords. Text: Keywords Rule: Are Empty

The only thing I would like to see added is the ability to include synonyms in the search.
I use these to add the different terms used for the same object in different countries. footpath -> sidewalk , track -> trail and the different spellings light -> lite, colour -> color.

All you say is true and, in iteslf, works fine. However, that still does not solve the problem of keywords which form subsets of other words. I don't want to have to think about every keyword I use to make sure there is no other keyword embedded within it, I want a user-friendly keyword structure.

I know David and I can bore on the subject but the answer is easy and already well implemented on Adobe products... just give us an include/exclude check box like PSE ORganizer!

I have just read through this thread again from start to finish.

@EOSAddict you mentioned in #45
"In LR I have to enter Al in the find box which then also selects images such as hospital - not what I wanted!"

The "contains" rule is implementing a search with wildcards either side.

Have you tried "Starts with" as the rule?
Another one for words within words is the NOT function. As an example I have rose as a keyword under plants ->flower->perennial and Rosehill as a place under locations. I have two ways to do this, from the complete catalogue I can type rose, !Rosehill.
The other option is to select my "plants" hierarchy and all the rose images will display.

Thanks!

I have to admit I have not really looked at all the database search options... I am sure that it can be made to do what I want it to do... but my (and David's) oft repeated point is why should we force the system to do what we want when an extremely user-friendly and quick way of doing it already exists in Adobe products. You could still have the find box for the SQL fiends

For example If I want to find a pic of my daughter on a horse but not with my son in the picture, taken in the last year, that would be 4 mouse clicks in PSE.

Now tell me how to write that in LR Find

EOSAddict wrote in post #3660903
For example If I want to find a pic of my daughter on a horse but not with my son in the picture, taken in the last year, that would be 4 mouse clicks in PSE.

Now tell me how to write that in LR Find

Probably pick the year with the metadata browser (assuming your camera's date is correct) then use find rule contains with horse, daughter, !son.

Change names to suit.

Ahh... but he must type that into the find box, correct? What we like is the intuitive no-type method.

I know many people here have CS2 or CS3 and may have never used Elements. In fact, many openly mocked the Elements organizer as useless and childless... yet they now love the "NEW" concept of Lightroom's Library. But once you've seen and used the checkboxes in action, its hard to give up.

I do appreciate (and admit I also need to learn) the complexities of the database search. But where there is an easier slicker way to do it, I say why not... especially since its Adobe's own programs that do it... they'r not stealing any ideas but their own.

I guess now I'll follow Al's lead, and TRY to stop boring you all...

It probably depends a lot on the size of your keyword list David. Mine has somewhere around 11,000 terms, so typing into the find box is a lot quicker than opening the keyword list and scrolling for the terms I want.
Over the years I have used Thumbs+ and IMatch and much prefer the IMatch way of accessing keywords, however the Thumbs+ way of listing the offline CD and DVD images is a lot better than IMatch, especially when one has a couple of DVD drives in the computer and uses both to read.

11,000 keywords? How could you possibly remember them all to know what to type? And you better get the spelling exact...

I agree with David & Al. It's sooo much easier in Elements that I can't comprehend why LR doesn't have something similar.

And if you have 11,000 keywords, you combat that by using a heirarchy. You should still be able to type them if that's what you like, I don't think anyone's advocating doing away with that. But check-boxes that allow multiple selections would be a great addition.

Something else I just discovered...

If you assign a keyword by typing in box it will autofill for you if it finds a matching keyword. Unfortunately, if the matching keyword is capitalized but you started typing in lowercase, it will fill in the existing keyword but leave it un-capitalized and create a new keyword. So now you have two key-words the same, one starting with a capital letter and one starting with a lowercase letter. ??

Good point Elizabeth...

I agree, no one is advocating doing away with Find box... that's fine. Similarly if someone prefers that over checkboxes that's fine too... don't use them. But I really do think BOTH should be there. Its one of my main complaints about LR. Don't even notice speed problems others talk about because I'm spending so much time on the keywords... I'm sure if they fixed this I'd find something else to compain about, but it would at least get me off of my Keywords soapbox...

Elizabeth Thomas wrote in post #3668518
Something else I just discovered...

If you assign a keyword by typing in box it will autofill for you if it finds a matching keyword. Unfortunately, if the matching keyword is capitalized but you started typing in lowercase, it will fill in the existing keyword but leave it un-capitalized and create a new keyword. So now you have two key-words the same, one starting with a capital letter and one starting with a lowercase letter. ??

Yes, I figured this out as well, unfortunately, the autofill is slow to autofill on how fast I go. Another wierd thing also is I tried using keywords like, "family, dave, smith" and it actually created a keyword "family, dave, smith" in the checkbox area but when I look at the entry box where you fill this in, it is family, dave, smith correctly.

What I thought it would do is, put it in family, dave and smith, categories individually and not "family, dave, smith" category

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3666093
In fact, many openly mocked the Elements organizer as useless and childless...

Childish maybe David, but never childless!!

I agree that the organizer in Elements does a better job with the keywords though.....

rfreschner wrote in post #3674448
Childish maybe David, but never childless!!

I agree that the organizer in Elements does a better job with the keywords though.....

oops... funny typo... good catch