Amplenote Explained 14: Tags vs Folders pt. 2: Switching to tags

TL;DR

A single note can carry multiple tags, letting it belong to several contexts at once without forcing a single folder path.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

Tags in Amplenote offer a more flexible way to organize notes than traditional folders because one note can carry multiple tags at the same time—effectively letting it “belong” to several categories without duplicating the note or forcing a single location. That matters when a single note naturally spans multiple contexts. A meeting note that involves a client who’s also a friend and also includes a startup idea doesn’t fit neatly into just one folder. With tags, the note can be labeled for each relevant category (for example, “work,” “friends,” and “product ideas”), so it shows up wherever those contexts are searched later.

The practical advantage is that tags support cross-cutting retrieval. If “minimalism” appears in both personal journaling and product onboarding work, tagging both notes with “minimalism” makes it easy to pull up all related material from a sidebar tag view. Folders can do something similar only by forcing notes into one path at a time, which breaks down when the same idea recurs across unrelated areas of life.

Amplenote’s tag system also reduces the maintenance burden that often grows with folder hierarchies. The transcript describes a common folder-based spiral: start with a “projects” folder, then split into subfolders when there are too many projects (e.g., project/health, project/film). Next, create a separate “resources” folder to separate tasks from notes, which then triggers more subdivisions (health resources, film resources). The result is duplicated structure—health and film effectively appear multiple times—making the system harder to keep consistent.

Switching to tags avoids that redundancy by separating concerns across tag positions. One tag can represent the note type (such as “project”), while a second tag can represent the area of interest (such as “health” or “film”). This keeps the vocabulary compact: the same “health” tag can apply across different note types without being recreated under multiple folder branches. The payoff extends to search as well: it becomes possible to retrieve all projects regardless of area, or all health-related notes regardless of type.

Tags also work as lightweight status markers. A note can be tagged “waiting” to indicate it’s blocked on another person, or tagged “archived” to mark completion and hide it from view. For people experimenting with the switch, the transcript points to a tagging template and a quick search trick: typing “group: untagged” in the search bar surfaces notes missing tags, and saved searches can be added to shortcuts for periodic cleanup. Overall, tags are presented as a system that improves discoverability, simplifies organization, and minimizes duplicated structure compared with folder-based setups.

Cornell Notes

Amplenote tags are positioned as a more flexible alternative to folders because a single note can hold multiple tags at once. That flexibility matters when notes span several contexts—like a client meeting that’s also friendship and includes a startup idea—since the note can be retrieved from any relevant tag later. The transcript contrasts this with folder hierarchies, which often force notes into one branch and lead to duplicated structure when categories multiply (e.g., health and film appearing under both projects and resources). A tag-based approach can separate note type from area of interest using different tag “slots,” improving search and reducing redundancy. Tags can also represent status, such as “waiting” or “archived,” and untagged notes can be found via “group: untagged.”

Why does allowing multiple tags on one note beat a folder-only approach?

Because real notes often belong to more than one context at the same time. A single note might combine “work” and “friends” and also include “product ideas.” With tags, the note can be labeled for each category, so it appears in every relevant view. Folder systems typically restrict a note to one location, which forces awkward compromises or duplicated notes.

How does the transcript describe the “folder spiral” that creates redundancy?

It starts with a “projects” folder, then splits into subfolders when there are too many projects (like project/health and project/film). Next, tasks are separated from notes by creating a “resources” folder, which then also gets subdivided (health resources, film resources). The same categories end up duplicated across multiple branches, making the structure harder to maintain.

What tag structure is suggested to replace duplicated folder hierarchies?

Use separate tags to represent different dimensions. The first tag can describe the note type (e.g., “project”), and the second tag can describe the area of interest (e.g., “health” or “film”). This keeps “health” and “film” from being recreated under multiple folder trees, since the same tags can apply across note types.

How does the tag approach improve search compared with folders?

Tags enable more flexible filtering. One can search for all projects regardless of area, or search for all health notes regardless of type. Because tags are independent labels rather than a single path, retrieval can match multiple criteria without reorganizing the note’s location.

How can tags represent note status in this system?

Tags can function like state labels. For example, “waiting” can indicate the note is blocked on another person before the project can continue. “Archived” can mark completed work and hide it from view, turning tags into a practical workflow tool rather than just a taxonomy.

What quick method is offered for finding notes that lack tags?

Typing “group: untagged” in the search bar surfaces notes without any tags. The transcript also recommends saving that search to shortcuts so it can be run periodically to keep the tagging system tidy.

Review Questions

What kinds of notes are most likely to benefit from multiple tags, and why?
Describe the folder-based redundancy problem using the example of projects and resources.
How would you design a two-tag scheme to separate note type from area of interest?

Key Points

1
A single note can carry multiple tags, letting it belong to several contexts at once without forcing a single folder path.
2
Tags improve retrieval for cross-cutting ideas by making related notes easy to find via a shared tag (e.g., “minimalism” across personal and product work).
3
Folder hierarchies often become redundant as categories multiply, creating duplicated branches like health and film under both projects and resources.
4
A tag-based structure can separate dimensions—such as note type (project) and area of interest (health/film)—to avoid duplicated labels.
5
Tags support workflow status using labels like “waiting” and “archived,” not just organization.
6
Search becomes more flexible with tags, enabling queries like “all projects” or “all health notes” without reorganizing notes.
7
“group: untagged” helps identify notes missing tags, and saving that search to shortcuts supports ongoing maintenance.

Highlights

Tags let one note show up in multiple contexts at once, solving the “one folder only” limitation.

Folder systems tend to duplicate categories as hierarchies expand—health and film can end up repeated under different branches.

A two-tag scheme (type + area) keeps the taxonomy compact and makes search more powerful.

Status tags like “waiting” and “archived” turn tagging into a workflow mechanism, not just a filing method.

Topics

Tags vs Folders
Multi-Tag Organization
Reducing Folder Redundancy
Tag-Based Search
Workflow Status Tags