With a large number of vault entries, having tags would make my life so much easier. Organizing everything just with folders becomes limiting, especially when an item could logically belong to multiple categories. Tags would allow me to filter by person, purpose, or security level — without duplicating entries or creating endless subfolders. For users like me who manage not only personal logins but also backups for family members, tags would be a game-changer in keeping everything clean and accessible.
3 Likes
While waiting for this feature, I have decided to add a “key” emoji 
in the title of logins with a passphrase.
Similarly, I use a “shield” 
for logins with TOTP codes, a “phone’” 
for SMS based 2FA, an “e-mail” 
for e-mail based 2FA and a “mobile” 
for app based 2FA codes.
(The latter for example are iCloud device tokens or YouTube app tokens)
Using the emoji in a title would make it possible to use these in search, but also makes them retrieveable if I ever need to export my database.
1 Like
I use the Docker Container Link Warden and it allows you store, categorize, and add meta-data / search tags. It is a self hosted docker container that you can then connect to from all your devices.
I thought wouldn’t it be great if BitWarden did something similar to LinkWarden where it let you store and categorize / add meta-tags with your bookmarks and then have it available on all your devices.
Since Bitwarden already stores, synchronizes and makes available passwords, notes etc. this to me seems like a great feature to add.
Who’s with me? 
@LunchBoxSteve Welcome to the forum! I’ve moved your post into an existing feature request on the same topic.
1 Like
Thanks, sorry I didn’t see that topic. Much appreciated.
1 Like
I really need a Tags field so that for one Site I can separate my Administrator Accounts, Service Accounts, and User Accounts. This helps me build a task list of all Accounts across multiple Sites that require a yearly Password change. (and easily identify what the Service Account ID is for a Site)
1 Like
The main use case for tags is to categorize items in a way that makes them easier to find. Given that Bitwarden’s search experience can be limiting at times, having flexible tagging (including multiple tags per item) would significantly improve usability.
1 Like
@gtran “Mapping items to various folders” is different that using “tags”.
Before you/the Bitwarden Product and Design team starts to develop concepts or define milestones for “Mapping items to various folders” please ask here and check the posts/opinions. I do have a Bitwarden premium account only. So I have no idea how Collections (…) work.
“Mapping items to various folders”: It would mean I have to create lots folders. This also means the left panel of Bitwarden gets more and more messed up. I remember, exactly this was the reason (“messing up the left panel”) why you/the Bitwarden developers do not like to add further kinds of items to Bitwarden. In my opinion using the idea of adding the same item (like an alias) to several folders is the wrong way for categorising items. Mapping items by folders happens on the first/upper level. But adding an “character” (tag, colour, special prefix in titles, …) should happen on the item level, inside the item itself.
Using classical tags (e.g. ”#kids*”, “#shopping”)*: In my opinion the idea of tags is more flexible and far less cluttering (compared to use folders for each “tag”). I prefer to have less folders, but using #tags for adding important "details” to an item. Users are also used to add #tags. We know this kind of categorising or bringing various items in order by using #tags from many other apps. Categorising by tags happens inside an item and not outside like mapping items by folders. I know several users of other apps using #tags only, and almost no folders, to categorise items.
One (and the same) item should not be placed inside several folders. It could easily also cause some troubles when changing this item. It affects all other “aliases” of this item inside the various folders. The Idea of using “aliases” is not very known or common for the “normal” user. To me, “mapping by folders” sounds very (or “too”) fancy and “we, Bitwarden, do it differently". But there is no need to be fancy or different in this point. It should be easy to use and adapt, and it should be effective. Using #tags is easy to use and effective.
On the other side, and it is just guessing from my side, it can be tricky and difficult to implement such a #tags-system in an app which is not “new” and “light” anymore. It needs lot of changes for all platforms (again, it is just a guess from my side). It would be helpful to understand the opinion of Bitwarden better, after reading a short feedback from Bitwarden, explaining why #tags are not the choice #1 (and please not just saying “we prefer ‘mapping by various folders’”).
In case your team is planning to integrate a method for categorising items, I recommend to focus on “#tags”, and not on “mapping items to folders”.
1 Like
Please make this a Priority. My College chose 1password in no small part because of Tags. Everyone on the evaluation team already had various pw managers, and the Use Case about multiple tags made 1pass look better because of Tagging. Ironically, in Gmail, the use of Labels makes it better than Gdrive for managing information. Gdrive only allows 1 flag, Gmail allows lots of Label per email.
2 Likes
FWIW, I think these distinctions are merely semantic.
Bitwarden does not uses “aliases” or symlinks when org items are “mapped to multiple collections” (and presumably would not do so if they develop a similar framework for tag-like folder behavior, either). There is metadata associated with each vault item, specifying which collection(s) the item is assigned to and which folder the item is assigned to. In the current implementation, items can only be associated with a single folder (but more than one collection). If items were able to belong to multiple folders, then the folders would act just like tags.
The proposed approach (repurposing folders as tags) would only be inadequate if you want a combination of folder-like and tag-like behavior (e.g., you want to search for #admin tagged items within a folder that contains all items associated with “Client 1”). Even this scenario is likely to work — presumably, if Bitwarden allows the possibility for items to belong to multiple folder, then the folder filters will at some point also be updated so that you can simultaneously filter for multiple folders (e.g., search only for items that are associated with folder “admin” and folder “Client 1”).
I am in the process of migrating an enterprise environment from Bitwarden to Securden. Tags ended up being a huge factor in the decision, also the lack of movement on the whole tags thing. Basically every solution has a tagging option. Bitwarden has been great but when you have thousands of passwords, dozens of collections and numerous naming conventions, it can be very difficult to find a password you’re looking for. A simple tag can make finding things so much easier.
there appear to be some design decisions early on that have made this a near impossible lift. The “collections” logic seems like it could be translated to tags though. Seeing as an item can belong to multiple collections. Why not build upon this.
Anyway… I’m keeping an eye on topics like this. Some day we may come back if tags are implemented.
I see it from the users point of view. And here it makes a (big) difference if a user
- adds #tags in a field, e.g. #prio #shopping #name1, or
- can move an item to several folders like folder “pro”, “shopping” and “name1”.
Let us say, an item is visible in three folders. Visually this one item becomes three items now.
But using #tags inside an item this one item stays one item on the upper level of organisation.
Maybe there is an additional list (under the folders) in the left panel called “Tags”. here I see all used tags.
There is no really “right” or “wrong” when using “folders” or “tags”. But there is a way to make it easier for users (using “tags”; or more complicated (using “folders”). The chance to change an item in a folder “x” affects also the same item in folder “y”. But using #tags it is clear that this item exists only 1x.
I am also a user, and see it from a user’s point of view (mine).
For better or for worse, Bitwarden does not support drag-and-drop moving of items into folders, so the method for associating a folder with an item is to select a folder (in the future, possibly, one or more folders) in a field that is available when editing the item. If tags were ever implemented, I suspect they would prefer an (expandable and customizable) selection list for choosing tags (as opposed to freely typed # keywords), so the interface would be essentially equivalent in both cases.
Surely you want to be able to filter by tag. So if an item has three tags, then that item will be visible under three different tag filters — so in exactly the same way that you described for folders, the one item “becomes three items”.
There is no difference here either. When you open an item for editing, you can see which folder is associated with (if any), and have the ability to change the folder. If Bitwarden implements tagging using folders, then you obviously would see all associated folders (i.e., tags) when you view or edit the item.
You can do this today. Put “#tag” into the notes field (or any other field). Then, you can search for it with that name:
Almost as good as real tags.
@grb Hmm, difficult to explain my thoughts, or my feelings. Tags are not folders, it is something different.
Adding an item to different folders means: Moving the same item to different locations.
Adding tags to an item: A value, a detail of the item is changed (“inside”) but not the location.
For me there its no reason why one item should be organised in several folders (one item in several folders). An item belongs to one folder and I can add “low level” character values (tags) inside this item. But adding the same item to several folders is it like creating copies of one item.
Well, as I mentioned, difficult to explain.
That what I do already on a lower level and for just a few items. I must say it is not really as good as real tags, like no auto-complete of tags, no overview of used tags …
I found this description which explains my thoughts:
-
Folders: Ideal for creating a clear, visual structure. Files are stored in specific locations, (making it easy to back up or share entire projects). However, they can become limiting when a file fits into more than one category or when folder structures grow too deep.
-
Tags: Perfect for flexibility. You can assign multiple labels to a file, making it easier to search and categorize across different contexts. But they require consistent naming and regular maintenance to avoid clutter.
Source: Tags vs. Folders: File Organization Explained
Or, like in real life: One document/printed paper (e.g. birth certificate). I can place it in one folder only (because it exists only one time), so I place it in the folder e.g. “Family”. But, as this document is very important, I can use a red Post-It with “PRIO” and attach it to this document. And a blue one with “clausimausi”, and so one. I know that such a document is in the folder “Family” and I see the blue tag which means it is about me.
Yes, with Bitwarden we are in a virtual and not in the real world. No need to stick to the real world - you can just define that it is possible to add the same document to three folders. But I really see no reason why changing the common way of organising documents.
That description only contrasts tags vs. conventional folders (of which at most one can be associated with a given item). It is the ability to associate multiple distinct categories with the same item that is the distinguishing feature between tags and conventional folders. Therefore, if you make a UI in which an item can appear in multiple folders (and in which inspecting the item reveals every folder that the item is associated with), then these new “superfolders” become de facto equivalent to tags.
That is in part because you’re trying to make a distinction where none exists. It would help if you think about the implementation. Each vault item consists of structured data (e.g., a JSON structure) in which there are fields to hold all information, including fields for the item’s collection(s), folder, and (hypothetically) tags. Here is an excerpt of the JSON structure for a vault item that is associated with two collections and one folder:
{
"id": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx",
"collectionIds": [
"yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy",
"zzzzzzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzz"
],
"folderId": "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
},
If Bitwarden implements a system in which each item can be associated with more than one “superfolder”, then the corresponding JSON structure might look as follows instead:
{
{
"id": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx",
"collectionIds": [
"yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy",
"zzzzzzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzz"
],
"superfolderIds": [
"aaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbb-bbbb-bbbb-bbbb-bbbbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccc-cccc-cccc-cccc-cccccccccccc"
]
},
Now contrast the above to the most likely implementation of a tagging feature:
{
{
"id": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx",
"collectionIds": [
"yyyyyyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyyyyyyy",
"zzzzzzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzz"
],
"tagIds": [
"aaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbb-bbbb-bbbb-bbbb-bbbbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccc-cccc-cccc-cccc-cccccccccccc"
]
},
The only difference is in the internal field name for the JSON field (superfolderIds vs. tagIds), which is a trivial difference, and is in any case not exposed to the user. So for all intents and purposes, the “superfolders” would be functionally equivalent to tags.
As a final thought — collections, which already exist in organization vaults today, are similar to the hypothetical “superfolders” described above, in that vault items can belong to more than one collection at the same time. Thus, to simulate tags, you could move items that you wish to tag into an organization and assign them to a collection that bears the name of your desired tag. This will allow you to associate a vault item with one folder that has been set up in your individual vault, and independently associate the same item with one or more collections (acting as “tags”). Free organizations only allow creation of two collections, however, so to use this approach with more than two “tags”, you would need a paid organization plan.
@grb : What you described here the view from the developers side. For a “common” user (like me) it is not really relevant.
Maybe I have to test the “Collections” (but I have a Premium account only, not using an Organization vault) and maybe, I would be happy with it. Because, what you describes above, it seems that these Collections work (exactly) like #tags. But why not allowing such a basic feature (requests by many, many users) for all users (or just “Premium”)? Why is it an “Organization” feature only?
If “Collections” = “#tags” I also wonder why Bitwarden uses a different and confusing wording. Just to be different? It sounds more “technical”, and to show that “we are different"?
So, about Collections in Organization vaults:
- One item can be stored in many folder, but is always located in one folder (like now in Bitwarden generally)?
- One item can be associated with Collections?
- We could call a “Collection” also “#tag” (in the meaning of the idea of #tags we know from many other apps).
- A “Collection” is not a “Folder” (technically maybe, but visually, for the user)?
- If this is correct (more or less), then Bitwarden makes a distinction between such info, like the categorisation (Folder) and “tagging” (Collections).