Dynamic tag counts based filtering

I check for duplicates and I think there is no request on this yet.

Current behavior
At the moment when you use tags to roam around you can use tags, add conditions etc. However the counts for tags at your left-hand side toolbar don’t append - they reflect the absolute number of papers with a given tag in DB.

Desired behavior
It would be so productive if the tag counts were dynamically recalculated based on the current filters to guide attention in browsing and refining tags themselves.

Let’s say I have four tags: A B C D. Then when I browse through A and only 2 of them also contain B within this scope then this is the information I care about - tag count should reflect 2. I don’t care that there are 5 of them in the whole DB because this is not the focus I need at the moment of browsing. As follows if I browse through A and none of them contain D, then this would be a good reason not to render it at all. The list would be shorter and I could find more easily what I look for by exploring the scope I am actually interested in.

Adding dynamic calculations does not remove current feature - you can still check absolute numbers by taking off all the filters. But it also adds a tremendously helpful one that affords tags to guide focus much better. So it offers adding a feature without removing the other, while offering better UX and without complicating UI. Technically it should be fairly effortless to implement by catching the state after filtering and using computed values to render list of tags.

Thanks for the request and reasoning, @Krzysztof_Durczak. I wonder if you’ve noticed there is already a dynamic paper count displayed atop the right-hand side filter menu, which changes with each selection?

It’s also worth noting that the filters on that column display dynamic paper count as well, changing depending on the location and/or selected parameters.

In any case, let me know your thoughts and I can still add your request to our tracker if needed.

Hey! Thank you for the response!

  1. The top right-hand counter - I haven’t noticed that!
  2. It’s cool! But I had to drop using folders altogether because they made it impossible to use and append pdfs with hand writing on Boox e-ink.

100+ labels and no folders

Both cases though do not offer the functionality I am talking about - they give information after the search as a result, not before as the basis for making decisions while browsing - and I would still argue that it’s very limited case when you would need to know the absolute number of papers that meet certain criteria.

I mean it’s cool to know that I have hundreds of papers, but it does not help me at all browsing through them. Appending tag list and counts dynamically would give one the knowledge beforehand what would happen if I choose to add X, Y or Z to the filter, thus helping to narrow the search further. This is important when you have hundreds of papers and use 80+ tags (where both numbers are growing because I just moved from the Mendeley where I keep the rest of 3000 papers and my 200+ tags). Counting the lump sum as a result of the search is not that informative because you never know how that number will change if you decide to add tag X or if it’s even there. Very often I get 0 results because two tags I thought went together actually didn’t - but I didn’t have any way to know that beforehand.


So I see your point, and it’s great to know that this feature is partly implemented already. However you assumed scenerio where user must use both tags and folders to have that functionality, whereas it is not the only way to grow, browse and curate one’s library within Paperpile :wink: Personally, maintaining both many-to-many (tags) and categorical (folders) systems is quite overwhelming so I was actually happy that using Boox made me drop the latter. But then absolute tag counts become a real limitation to what Paperpile could be for different people :slight_smile:

So let me flip the coin on this - is there a reason why tag counts shouldn’t append dynamically relative to the search rather than folders?