Pet Organization: Groups vs Tags

[cakeandqpm1138]

Ananda Regalia, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind when I suggested the tags idea. There could be options (maybe in a pulldown menu like there is now) such as "view all" or "view 'Dogs' " or "View 'PPS' " etc. That way, no one would have to think "Ok, where's my stained glass PPS dog? Is he under PPS? No? Ok, how about Stained Glass Dogs? NO!? How about Favorites? There he is, yay!" You could find the same individual pet by looking at all the pets tagged PPS or Stained Glass Dogs or Favorites.

I also like the idea of having all the tags for a specific pet listed on the pet's page. That would look less messy.

[Yunyi]

How would you go through and tag every pet, though? Do you have a more efficient system in mind than having to tag each pet separately?

[icarusAbstracted]

How would you go through and tag every pet, though? Do you have a more efficient system in mind than having to tag each pet separately?

How about the current grouping system. Click the little boxes and select "Tag as BlahBlah"
No faster or slower than the group way.

[Yunyi]

I suppose, but it would still be a lot of work to go through and mark every pet for whatever tags you want for it, especially if, say, you mark pets A and B as "dogs" then have to mark pet A as a favorite - you'd have to go back and unmark pet B. Or, if the marks reset, then you would have to recheck pet A. On a large scale, this would be impractical and take a long time.

And if you're one of the people with thousands of pets, it would be killer. You'd have to either go page by page or load the pets on a few pages (with the &pageSize thing), and the second option could cause Internet crashes from the sheer amount of pets. Whether you do it page by page with the standard 20 pets per page or with a few pages, it'll still take forever since it's the same amount of pets anyway. It seems like it would be a very monotonous task. Putting them into groups and leaving them is much easier than having them all lumped together and being forced to click every pet in between.

Same goes for untagging. You'd have to go through every pet and mark them again. Also, if tags aren't displayed under each pet, how will you remember which pet has been tagged with what? And if the tags ARE displayed underneath, it would be extremely cluttered, I think.

I mean, it's a good idea and I know why people would like it - I've run into the same "which group?" dilemma myself - but there seem to be a lot impracticalities that would have to be worked out.

[salinity]

I suppose, but it would still be a lot of work to go through and mark every pet for whatever tags you want for it, especially if, say, you mark pets A and B as "dogs" then have to mark pet A as a favorite - you'd have to go back and unmark pet B. Or, if the marks reset, then you would have to recheck pet A. On a large scale, this would be impractical and take a long time.

And if you're one of the people with thousands of pets, it would be killer. You'd have to either go page by page or load the pets on a few pages (with the &pageSize thing), and the second option could cause Internet crashes from the sheer amount of pets. Whether you do it page by page with the standard 20 pets per page or with a few pages, it'll still take forever since it's the same amount of pets anyway. It seems like it would be a very monotonous task. Putting them into groups and leaving them is much easier than having them all lumped together and being forced to click every pet in between.

Same goes for untagging. You'd have to go through every pet and mark them again. Also, if tags aren't displayed under each pet, how will you remember which pet has been tagged with what? And if the tags ARE displayed underneath, it would be extremely cluttered, I think.

I mean, it's a good idea and I know why people would like it - I've run into the same "which group?" dilemma myself - but there seem to be a lot impracticalities that would have to be worked out.

This whole post practically explains how I feel. To add to it wouldn't it get confusing when you go to check a two groups in which the pet is both in? It would seem that you have two of those pets. Say you want an extra just in case you got a really good offer for the first one? What if you look at it, think you have an extra, and trade that pet away? Boom. You lost it. It would be really hard for me too, as I don't name my pets and if I do I usually forget their names. If you get what I mean ^^;

[~Fallen Angel~]

I get what you guys are saying, but I still think this is an awesome idea. You could maybe also have a little thing along with the pets saying You have: x of this pet to solve the problem mentioned above

[klaoud]

support!

[Sherlock]

I suppose, but it would still be a lot of work to go through and mark every pet for whatever tags you want for it, especially if, say, you mark pets A and B as "dogs" then have to mark pet A as a favorite - you'd have to go back and unmark pet B. Or, if the marks reset, then you would have to recheck pet A. On a large scale, this would be impractical and take a long time.

And if you're one of the people with thousands of pets, it would be killer. You'd have to either go page by page or load the pets on a few pages (with the &pageSize thing), and the second option could cause Internet crashes from the sheer amount of pets. Whether you do it page by page with the standard 20 pets per page or with a few pages, it'll still take forever since it's the same amount of pets anyway. It seems like it would be a very monotonous task. Putting them into groups and leaving them is much easier than having them all lumped together and being forced to click every pet in between.

Same goes for untagging. You'd have to go through every pet and mark them again. Also, if tags aren't displayed under each pet, how will you remember which pet has been tagged with what? And if the tags ARE displayed underneath, it would be extremely cluttered, I think.

I mean, it's a good idea and I know why people would like it - I've run into the same "which group?" dilemma myself - but there seem to be a lot impracticalities that would have to be worked out.

This whole post practically explains how I feel. To add to it wouldn't it get confusing when you go to check a two groups in which the pet is both in? It would seem that you have two of those pets. Say you want an extra just in case you got a really good offer for the first one? What if you look at it, think you have an extra, and trade that pet away? Boom. You lost it. It would be really hard for me too, as I don't name my pets and if I do I usually forget their names. If you get what I mean ^^;

I agree with this completely.
Personally, this tagging system would drive me insane. It would be extremely confusing about knowing how many of a certain pet you have. This reminds me of Aywas' grouping system, which I don't like at all.
I like the current grouping system. Although there are times when the tagging could come in handy, I think overall it would be much too confusing and cluttered. The current grouping system, even with it's occasional grouping dilemmas, is more simple and easier in the end, in my opinion.

[ariadne]

I don't like the idea : /
That would make things messy & impossible to keep track of how many of one pet you have if it's in more than one group.

[Yunyi]

So we'd have tags and groups?