Obsidian

Are Folders Dead? Navigating the Shift from Folders to Metadata

Folder architectures are clunky and ancient, but do they still have a place in a modern Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) workflow?

Odin Halvorson

23 Feb 2026 — 4 min read

Photo by Wesley Tingey / Unsplash

Folder architectures are clunky and ancient. But do they still have any place in a modern workflow?

When you open a folder on your computer, you usually dig down into layers of subfolders. We're all pretty familiar at this point with the tree folder structure, where you have a single top-level root folder, and you just expand from there into an ever-increasing branching tree of subfolders filled with files.

Now, it's possible to have a very orderly folder structure. For instance, I actually use a modified Johnny Decimal system, which is just a very simple, two-layer decimal folder structure. It ensures a relatively flat hierarchy that still provides the benefit of different vessels to hold content.

But a lot of modern methods of organization don't use this at all. In fact, many have opted completely for tagging and keyword systems that bypass a lot of the traditional folder limitations.

The Problem with the Folder Tree

Right now, if I put things into one folder—let's call it "Medical History"—and then I put something related to medical bills in another folder, and then create a completely different folder for different doctors and specialists, I have a problem. All of a sudden, my health information is spread across multiple locations that I now have to drill down into each time I want to access important data.

But all that information is very likely linked already, or at least it should be linked. The prescriptions from certain specialists relate directly to certain conditions, right?

In modern systems, you might be able to create a specific tag or keyword that connects all of these. One could simply be #medical. Instantly, all of these different files are linked across your system. Another tag could be #medical-specialist/arthritis. Now, everything related to that specific topic is connected, and you can view them all together effortlessly.

Moving Beyond PARA and Proprietary Lock-in

One of the most well-known folder methods in recent years was created by the PKM enthusiast Tiago Forte. It's called the PARA method: Projects, Areas, Resources, and Archives.

He uses this system because he's using a pretty old piece of software—and one that I definitely don't recommend because of its proprietary lock-in—called Evernote, which is still heavily folder-centric.

There is some use to this, of course. There's value in organizing things into different buckets because we need to find an efficient way to organize what we're thinking about. But recently, I came across some interesting posts on the Obsidian forums discussing how we can do all of that PARA organizing that Tiago does with folders, just by using our metadata.

The Metadata Revolution

Metadata is exactly what I was talking about a moment ago: those keywords, tags, and links.

For instance, if we had a project we were working on, we could just drop a #project tag in the file, and suddenly, it becomes a project file. We could get even more specific and tag it #project_A. You can dig down deeper into meaning without having to physically place something in a completely isolated area. You can simply sort your notes using your native search system.

You can put all of your files into a single folder, and then just organize them using search indices, databases, or filters.

For tools like Obsidian, there are advanced search features that make this process incredibly easy. Furthermore, you can have a file that is an active project, but also archived at the same time. This flexibility means that you aren't going to lose information deep down within an isolated folder. A single file can effectively "live" in multiple sections or contexts at the exact same time.

Rethinking Your System for the Future

One of the benefits of folders is that they're really easy to learn, and we're heavily conditioned to use them. But there is a cognitive load that comes with that, too. We can become lazy about maintaining our folders, and they can quickly become the digital detritus of your electronic world—filled with information that's not doing anything, not going anywhere, not linked to anything else, and therefore, not providing any active value.

Remember: the main key to Personal Knowledge Management is understanding that every piece of data can support pretty much any other piece of data in surprising ways. You might have a "Project A" right now. But in two years, you might start a "Project Y" that actually replicates a lot of what Project A was doing, or links to it in incredibly useful ways.

Going forward, think about your own workflow:

What sort of metadata can you apply to your PKM system?
What sort of folder structures are actually helping you?
What is the real benefit of applying a rigid folder structure versus a fluid metadata structure?

Answer those questions to make your life easier right now, but also to build a system that supports your future self.

I’m Odin Halvorson, a librarian, life coach, and fiction author. If you like my work and want to support what we do here at Unenlightened Generalists, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter for as little as $2.50 a month!

Support us in other ways: