Filewise my tunes are organized in folders as “Date Purchased or Downloaded/Genre/Track.mp3”
In software I use playlists for genres, genre tag for subgenres, comment tag for track emotion
If it helps anybody I’m going to describe my “system” as well 
I use mainly folder based organizing - First of all I have a main folder with the year I acquired the track(for example 2015), then I have sub folder for each season starting from spring [I realized, then usually “styles” change and something new emerges, so atm autumn is III(3rd)] and after that I have genre (for example Electro House).
So my final output would be:
2015>III>Electro House>Skrillex x Birdy Nam Nam - Goin’ Hard (Crystalize Remode).mp3
I used to have each month separately (..so instead III, it would be 10, or 09, or something), but that made me often lose songs that are worth the play.
Also, Every last one of my songs is properly tag’ed, so I can find them from Traktor 
This system works best when you mostly need to play up-to-date music, because searching for older good songs with this system is complicated (I also use playlists inside Traktor to keep some older tunes for re-playing)
I agree 100%. It’s looking like i’m going to aim for the same route as the OP video. I have the feeling i’m going to give up on any potential use of Beatport Pro. This should keep Traktor, my iPhone and iTunes happy.
Alongside all this organised jibber jabber, I have a highly disorganised wall of Vinyl, but I like it like that.
It’s interesting that I’m not the only one here that uses ‘year of purchase’ as a reference for managing the library. Until now, I didn’t know anyone else that did that.
Patch: I didn’t want to rely on iTunes, and the playlist integration with Traktor isn’t the best. I used to just use Windows File Manager (back in the day) and drag tunes into Traktor. I embraced using the app browser when I got my X1s and now run the software full screen. My biggest gripe (that I’ve mentioned many times to the NI guys when we’ve had meetings with them) is the rather annoying issue that when you clear the browser search with the X button, it doesn’t replace the cursor in the search box, meaning you then have to click back into it. It’s even worse when you have the default keyboard shortcuts because there’s a good chance you could STOP THE FREAKING MUSIC if you hit the wrong key. I really wish they’d fix that as it cuts out a few milliseconds of workflow time, which, over a couple of hours, builds up to a bit of wasted time.
We should call that Chaos Filing.
Neither did I - and I suppose I don’t really. I rely on my own carefully tagged files. iTunes is just where the information in those files is compared and managed (SMART Playlists).
I’m honestly hoping Traktor includes it’s own version of Smart Playlists in the future. If they don’t, they are GODDAMN FOOLS!!! 
What’s wrong with the Playlist integration? I don’t have any problems navigating and browsing with the iTunes Node in Traktor? I’m interested to hear what you’ve come up against?
I think it’s just unrealistic to expect that any concept of Smart Playlists delivered by NI is ever going to match what Apple already gave us. For all sorts of business and technical reasons. It looks simple as a user, but I bet Apple invested a ton of effort to make it so simple, powerful, fast and reliable.
Traktor does certain things really well that iTunes can’t do, and vice versa. It takes a certain amount of work to get the two tools to play nicely together, but in the end I think it’s worth it.
I’m with you. Browsing in the iTunes node has been improved lately, and I don’t have any big complaints about it now.
Smart Playlists are definitely not difficult to implement. It’s just a bunch of IF statements/queries.
Other DJ software (Deckadance, I think) has it.
“A bunch of IF statements/queries” is a description of roughly every computer program ever made.
This is a nice example of exactly what I’m talking about. Deckadance imitated the easy parts of what iTunes has, and skipped the difficult parts. The result is something that’s crippled, compared with what you can do in iTunes. One thing I’m talking about is nested conditionals, a feature explained here:
iTunes has this. Deckadance does not.
A related feature is the ability to build a query based on the presence (or absence) of a track in one or more other playlists (including other smart playlists). This is another tool for building rules that are powerful and complicated. iTunes has this. Deckadance does not.
Another related feature is the concept of playlist folders. The video at the top of this thread does a pretty good job of explaining why this feature matters. Playlist folders work with both regular playlists and smart playlists. Deckadance does not have the concept of playlist folders.
If all these features are “definitely not difficult to implement,” then how come iTunes is the only program that has all these features? Answer: because they actually are difficult to implement. And if you’re trying to manage a large collection in a professional way, all these features end up being useful.
Also, NI has better things to do. They’re trying to be a hardware company. Their controllers are a kind of dongle. When they add major software features, I think the focus will be on features that help them sell hardware. Remix Decks are a good example.
Sounds like you’ve looked into Deckadance more than I have! I didn’t realise how much of the cool iTunes features were missing from DD.
But iTunes only has 2 sets of information available to query in it’s Smart Playlists. The iTunes information held in the iTunes library (.xml), and the information held in the actual media files (the tags).
Traktor has access to it’s own library (.nml), and the tags - so why couldn’t Traktor develop native Smart Playlists?
It’s not that they “couldn’t.” If NI wanted to, they certainly could. I’m just predicting that they never will. Or at least they will never build a Smart Playlist feature as powerful as what iTunes already has. Why? Because it would be a lot of work, contrary to what you said. And they would be reinventing the wheel.
It was smarter for NI to do what they already did: give us an iTunes node that works well, as you mentioned yourself. The smart move for NI was to make it easier for us to use the two programs together, instead of trying to recreate from scratch something that Apple already did very, very well.
I don’t think NI are lazy. Just because it’s a lot of work, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t/shouldn’t do it.
Traktor generates and stores a lot of information about your tracks - to not be able to scrutinise that information (a Smart Playlist based on tracks that are in the collection but not played?) seems like a waste to me.
It must be on their radar. Must be.
It has nothing to do with laziness. It has to do with the concept of opportunity cost.
I’m just making a prediction. My prediction is that they will eventually do something like this, but it won’t match what’s in iTunes. It will look more like what’s in Deckadance. Deckadance has Smart Playlists that resemble iTunes Smart Playlists, but only when you look from a distance. When you look closely, you see how the feature in Deckadance is crippled. When NI does something similar to Deckadance, many people with relatively simple needs will be satisfied, but people like me who depend on the more powerful features in iTunes Smart Playlists won’t be satisfied, and will keep using the latter.
So I never said NI would do nothing like this. All I said is that they won’t match what iTunes has.
I think you’re making a very good point. iTunes has a powerful Smart Playlists feature, but it cannot look at data like the data you mentioned: a play count inside Traktor. So it actually does make sense for NI to build a Smart Playlists feature that just covers this gap, without trying to include all the powerful features in iTunes Smart Playlists. Then a user could use both systems together and get the best of both worlds.