Fear: Library being corrupted after weeks/months of work WHEN using "Collections"

Solved?: Use Keywords instead of collections?
Keyword Set 1: 01 Category > Business, Lifestyle, Kids, Healthcare etc...
Keyword Set 2: 02 Market > Stone, Image Bank, Photodisc, etc...
Keyword Set 3: 03 Type > Talent, Stills

Select image(s) & CHECK which Keywords apply from the Keyword list, using 01, 02 & 03
at the beginning defaults the list to the top, so no searching. After Checking keywords, Save metadata to the file. If the Library becomes corrupted then I still have the keywords embedded in the file. If I were to use only Collections & the library becomes corrupted then I have lost
weeks or months of organizing.

Does anyone see a problem with this way of organizing?

I have been thinking about organizing things this way, not because I fear library
corruption, but as an easy way to organize images into smart collections in LR 2.0.
That way I don't have to drag the images by hand over to the collection I want
them in.

Ronny

It sorta depends on how you look at it. IMO you should never be stuck with a corrupted catalog, not because LR is perfect and bug-free (of course it's not), but because you religiously back up your catalog ... right? It's really something you should do often, given that the catalog is typically a small fraction of the total size of your images.

Adding lots of descriptive keywords is a good idea. But limiting yourself to doing JUST that isn't ideal, because collections (and smart collections) are now accessible in 4 of the 5 modules (library, web, slideshow, print). So if you're not in library mode, it's very handy to be able to browse your library via collections.

And sometimes you want images in a collection even though it doesn't make that much sense to keyword those images as such. For example, you're trying to put together a 2008 "10-best" portfolio. You could have a keyword "2008 10-best" or something like that, but it makes more sense to me to have a collection for that.