Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gummbah]

If i understand what you are saying its that you would like to have the same nestable feature in the files view ?..that lower part of the screen.

Yep that's what I was arguing plus the possibility to nest on the basis of any tag, not just a keyword tag.
Sorry for not being more clear!

[)p(]

Next build:
Changed: Nested keywords are saved and loaded to XMP and ITPC tags using forward slash as the delimiter instead of backslash.

Thanks that will work ok

peter

[hit_ny]

This would be in particular helpful if it is possible in the viewing pane (not sure if that is what it is called, but I refer to the lower part of the screen in the screenshot http://www.pix01.com/gallery/870F46F7-4E87-44B0-A4F2-0FC2ED152FFA/Nested_Keywords/)
It would be another way of browsing through your media. Instead of having a list of thousands of songs, you would have a list of albums, and when clicking on it, it would expand to show the songs in that particular album.

I get what you are saying, it always struck me as a bit strange that whenever you clicked a viewscheme, MC would spill out all its contents in the file view...at the beginning. Then you browse with panes and it gets pruned down.

i've always thought the reason was so you could get to the data faster, MC was building up some sort of cache to get to the info faster and that it was a necessary part of the way MC works. I'm not sure if this is true as a locate->Album say from PN is much faster.

So whats the default action of a viewscheme to be then..

Nothing in the file view till you select something in the panes..with an (All) option at the top to display everything if required ?

See if its album thumbnails being displayed then you woudl want to see all the thumbs. But if it was a file list then maybe seeing everything isnt all that necessary. But then this isn't consistant behaviour  ?

Sometimes its desirable to display everything in the files view and in other cases not.

sounds like an option to me

[glynor]

Nothing in the file view till you select something in the panes..with an (All) option at the top to display everything if required ?

This'd be terrible for my purposes.  I use unfiltered View Schemes constantly.  Keep in mind that View Schemes can be pre-filtered to work just like Smartlists using Step 4 in the Edit View Scheme dialog.  (Not to mention using the Tree to browse view schemes too.)

Many of my view schemes don't even SHOW the panes, much less require me to actively go up and select (All).  That'd be a whole lot more trouble than it'd be worth!

[hit_ny]

If you filter in step 4, then you are stuck with that selection throughout your interaction with the viewscheme. You do initially filter for a subset but then you are presented with every file the viewcheme can see which i have never needed to date other than to get stats. Most of the time i'm selcting from panes to get specific results.

Its not for every viewscheme which is why i thought it might be better as an option.

[glynor]

If you filter in step 4, then you are stuck with that selection throughout your interaction with the viewscheme.

Right.  For many of my View Schemes this is exactly what I want.

I have a set of about 30 View Schemes which are "pre-mixed", using the ~mix modifier and other complex rules (much like how many people would probably use Smartlists -- this and this Genre, but not this or this artist, mixed with these percentages, etc).  About 80% of the time I just play these using Play All (set on Shuffle) by selecting a "start song" and then letting shuffle handle the rest.  However, sometimes I want to be able to filter them using the Panes or the Tree, which is why I build them as View Schemes.  Smartlists are just silly from my point-of-view.  There is little they can do that View Schemes don't do better.

Another example is my Movies View Scheme.  It is Pre-Filtered to only show Videos where [Genre]=Movie (I use Genre for this purpose for videos because Media Sub Type isn't flexible enough).  Most of the time, I want to scroll through my full list of available movies when selecting what to watch.  However, sometimes I want something from a specific "Genre" (mapped to [SubGenre] in my library for Video) or from a specific Director ([Artist]) in which case I use the panes to sub-filter the list.

A third example, if you want it, is all of my View Schemes that I use for tagging.  I have a number of pre-filtered (or appropriately sorted with the newest stuff on top) View Schemes that make it simple for me to locate and tag my "new" files.  For example, I have an Imports View Scheme which shows all files imported within the past 90 days, with the newest stuff on top, and which filters out files that fall into a few distinct categories (stuff I don't bother to tag because they're temporary, etc)... Again, I almost always want to see ALL of the files in this scheme because I go through it systematically to make sure everything gets "touched".

So... I guess I just don't see how the proposed change would be better.  It'd be horribly inconsistent with the rest of the interface (which would assuredly lead to confusion from novices), it would NOT match the behavior of effectively every other media playing application in existence (iTunes included), and it would lead me to have to do multiple extra clicks every time I want to watch a movie (and wouldn't save anyone else any extra clicks either because you'd still be filtering using the panes).  Just bad all around IMHO!

[Doof]

This would be in particular helpful if it is possible in the viewing pane (not sure if that is what it is called, but I refer to the lower part of the screen in the screenshot http://www.pix01.com/gallery/870F46F7-4E87-44B0-A4F2-0FC2ED152FFA/Nested_Keywords/)
It would be another way of browsing through your media. Instead of having a list of thousands of songs, you would have a list of albums, and when clicking on it, it would expand to show the songs in that particular album.

Is that more clear? Not sure how else to explain.

Maybe I'm unclear, but how is this different from the built-in functionality that we already have with the Tree?

[marko]

It would be nice if list groups could sort first, like windows sorts folders before files.

I forced the issue by adding an exclamation mark to the front of the group names and for me, it's much tidier.

Image tagging is very, very slow with build .398.

-marko.

[marko]

I'm in the process re-structuring my entire image library using nested groups in the keywords field and I have to say, this is a real milestone feature.

Many fields I used for images will be redundant by the time I'm finished, first one down is [people] which are now all in a keywords !People group, and working very well indeed. When I'm done, I'll see about getting some wiki pages done because for a long time I've asked that MC do for my images what it has done for my music, and as far as organising goes, this is one of the most useful and productive additions to MC in a long time, especially when coupled with the new 'list' related expression functions.

We can specify anything that we want to use as a separator, and that's not limited to a single character, so, if you place all your People tags into a !People group, you can then use the following expression to create a pane that gives a head count...

if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),2),1 person,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),3),2 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),4),3 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),5),4 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),6),5 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),7),6 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),8),7 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),9),8 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),10),9 people,
if(isequal(listcount([keywords],!People),11),10 people,No People))))))))))

I'll prattle on some more once I've finished reorganising, if you haven't looked at nested keywords yet, you should, I think you'll like them

-marko.

[)p(]

I agree, the addition of the nested keywords was the deciding factor for me to buy mc now.
There still are some raw edges, in using it while tagging, but even with what we have now it is already very powerful indeed

peter

[johnnyboy]

love the feature, not so keen on the auto expanding.

I've disabled this feature in XP because I dont like it and hope you give me a similar option in MC to disable auto expanding.

Sometimes sure I want to dig down to lower levels, other times i just want the parent item!

[dcwebman]

When I'm done, I'll see about getting some wiki pages done because for a long time I've asked that MC do for my images what it has done for my music, and as far as organising goes, this is one of the most useful and productive additions to MC in a long time, especially when coupled with the new 'list' related expression functions.

Marko, I look forward to your wiki additions!

[DWAnderson]

I have just begin experimenting with converting a number of custome fields to keywords (hoping for greater compatability with Vista's use of XMP) and noticed the following:

The help (and Wiki) states: "It is possible to use an expression when editing values in a file list or in the Tag Action Window. This works like Excel formulas -- simply prepend an equal sign to the front of the edited text and it will be interpreted as an expression. (use '= to output an actual equal)"

This does not appear to be true when the Keywords field is edited in the Tag Action Window.

Is this by design or a bug? Either MC or the help/wiki should be fixed so that they are consistent.

[marko]

I have just begin experimenting with converting a number of custome fields to keywords (hoping for greater compatability with Vista's use of XMP) and noticed the following:

The help (and Wiki) states: "It is possible to use an expression when editing values in a file list or in the Tag Action Window. This works like Excel formulas -- simply prepend an equal sign to the front of the edited text and it will be interpreted as an expression. (use '= to output an actual equal)"

This does not appear to be true when the Keywords field is edited in the Tag Action Window.

Is this by design or a bug? Either MC or the help/wiki should be fixed so that they are consistent.

I mentioned this elsewhere as the action window was, for me, the most logical place to perform such actions. It might be squeezed into v12, but I very much doubt it.
The solution is to use a [keywords] column, view the files in details instead of thumbnails, and perform your edits there. It works well.

While experimenting with this new feature, be sure to make regular library backups, as once you start combining list-type fields, the potential for things to go wrong is quite high untill you've sussed out what does what.

Be sure to check out the new expression functions.
listcombine(...) allows you to merge two list type fields into one, removing any resulting duplicates, which is nice!
replace(...) allows you to find semi-colons in a list type field and replace them with whatever. Find ; and replace with ;new group name\ can be handy before merging a field into [keywords].

If you take a little time to familiarise yourself with the tools at your disposal before you start in earnest, you could save a whole heap of time and headaches!!

-marko.

[robydago]

hi,
i'm starting to use this new feature and I noticed that when I have tags like "location\italy" (some files tagged) and
"location\italy\milan" (some different files tagged), in a view scheme with a 'keywords' item, I get a tree like this:
- location
  - italy
    - This Folder
    - milan

and selecting 'This Folder' returns only files tagged location\italy (and not the location\italy\milan ones)

that's fine.

the only problem is that, when in tagging mode, "This Folder" has no check box associated so tagging cannot be perfomed as easily as with all non "This Folder" entries.
any reason for this?

ciao.

[memelet]

...I get a tree like this:
- location
  - italy
    - This Folder
    - milan

I'm confused as to what exactly the "This Folder" is. Is there an explanation somewhere?

[DWAnderson]

Be sure to check out the new expression functions.
listcombine(...) allows you to merge two list type fields into one, removing any resulting duplicates, which is nice!
replace(...) allows you to find semi-colons in a list type field and replace them with whatever. Find ; and replace with ;new group name\ can be handy before merging a field into [keywords].

This is pretty cool. With it I was able to convert key fields from my entire library of pictures  (including a People field containing a list of items) into nested Keywords by selecting all my images, editing the Keywords field and then entering just one expression:

=if(IsEmpty([Genre]),,Genre\[Genre];)if(IsEmpty([Event]),,Event\[Event];)if(IsEmpty([Location]),,Location\[Location];)if(IsEmpty([Places]),,Places\[Places];)if(IsEmpty([People]),,People\replace([People],;,;People\))

I may beat you to the Wiki entries! (Update: Here is my start http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php/Photo_Tagging#Use_of_XMP_Tags)

[DWAnderson]

This is pretty cool. With it I was able to convert key fields from my entire library of pictures  (including a People field containing a list of items) into nested Keywords by selecting all my images, editing the Keywords field and then entering just one expression:

=if(IsEmpty([Genre]),,Genre\[Genre];)if(IsEmpty([Event]),,Event\[Event];)if(IsEmpty([Location]),,Location\[Location];)if(IsEmpty([Places]),,Places\[Places];)if(IsEmpty([People]),,People\replace([People],;,;People\))

BTW, it would be nice if there were some way to make this process work the other way when importing photos with XMP tags. If there were, this might expand the appeal of MC to those who currently use Vista or Adobe products to do their tagging with XMP tags. It seems to me that keywords are actually far less useful than dedicated fields in the MC library. (If I'm wong avout this I would be interested in knowing why!) Therefore I would think those with and existing library of XMP tagged photos would want to be able to translate XMP tags to MC custom fields, rather than just relying on nested keywords.

In any event I really appreciate the new nested keyword functionality combined with the power and flexibility of expressions!

[robydago]

I'm confused as to what exactly the "This Folder" is. Is there an explanation somewhere?

in my example I had some files actually tagged as "location\italy" and some other files tagged as "location\italy\milan".
since I had files tagged with "...\italy" and with "..\italy\milan", the way to identify files in this "italy" sort of directory is to have a "this folder" leaf beneath the italy branch.
so selecting:
- 'italy' selects all files (both the ...\italy AND the ...\italy\milan)
- 'this folder' selects only the ...\italy ones
- "milan" selects only the ...\italy\milan ones

my only remark is that when in tagging mode there's no checkbox associated to "this folder", so it's harder to tag files with those tags

ciao

[Matt]

We struggled with the naming of "This Folder".

We're open to other suggestions.

To explain why it's necessary, imagine two files:
C:\1.mp3
C:\Music\2.mp3

If you browse the tree, you see
C:\ -- includes both files
This Folder -- includes only the first file
Music -- includes only the second file

[robydago]

We struggled with the naming of "This Folder".

We're open to other suggestions.

a single dot '.'? (it's the standard used by all OS for the current directory)

btw, whatever you choose, what will happen to files tagged in the same way as your directory identifier? what if, for example, I tag a file with "italy" and another file with "italy\This Folder"?

[Quixote]

a single dot '.'? (it's the standard used by all OS for the current directory)

btw, whatever you choose, what will happen to files tagged in the same way as your directory identifier? what if, for example, I tag a file with "italy" and another file with "italy\This Folder"?

The single dot. This was my first thought as well.

[hit_ny]

or slash dot

/.

[Quixote]

or slash dot

/.

Even better

[Matt]

The dot and double-dot are pretty propeller-headed.  I think you had to grow up on DOS to know what it means.

[c1c9k72]

The dot and double-dot are pretty propeller-headed.  I think you had to grow up on DOS to know what it means.

While that may be true, I think that using some sort of symbol is probably better than using "This Folder."  Just because they used it in DOS doesn't mean it's not a viable option.

Until it was explained, I really didn't understand what "This Folder" meant exactly.  And let's not forget that that weird somebody who has a folder named "This Folder".

[marko]

And let's not forget that that weird somebody who has a folder named "This Folder".

Made me think....
You know you're in trouble when you go to help out on a friend/relative's PC, and there's a load of, invariably empty, "New Folder", "New Folder (1)" etc etc on their desktop!!!
Perhaps, instead of "This Folder", it could just repeat the name of the group and always be the first item listed?

Re. [keywords]...
With nesting, I would really like to use the keywords field, and only the keywords field, to organise my images. With all the tags and nesting in place, 1st impressions are pretty good.

With a search list pane, 2 keywords panes and a year pane, it's very easy to retrieve desired photos, or wallpaper etc. etc. but, what I need, is a way to extract keywords for use with the rename from properties tool.

I'm pretty sure I could work something out using the mid() expression, if MC would save the [keywords] data in alphabetical order...
Could that be a possibility do you think?

-marko.

[memelet]

...the way to identify files in this "italy" sort of directory is to have a "this folder" leaf beneath the italy branch...

Got it. Thanks!!

[memelet]

...I think that using some sort of symbol is probably better than using "This Folder."...
...Until it was explained, I really didn't understand what "This Folder" meant exactly...

Agreed. If it was "." or "./" or any thing similar I would have know immediately what it meant. Even if those symbols are too terse or arcane for the average MC user, "This Folder" is pretty bad.

But if I get a vote, I would opt for for a simple "."

-barry

[MusicHawk]

>> if MC would save the [keywords] data in alphabetical order...

Agreed, sorting keywords would be wonderful. I often assign many keywords to a track, then later when checking my organization, have trouble visually comparing two tracks because the keywords are not in the same order.

Keywords are sorted in the picklist, just do the same to the selected values in the Keywords field.

Except in situations (if there are any) where order of entry matters, I'd like ANY multi-value field to always sort its contents.


And... I vote for the same . and .. and / as used by operating systems and MANY file managers. I'm still not sure I can grasp what "This Folder" is telling me.

[datdude]

Any more development going on with this feature?

I'm hoping I can integrate my sub-genres into my genres, albums into artists, and sub-moods into moods, all with just a few clicks.  Possible?

[zirum]

Not to gloat or anything, but I am a programmer, grown up with dos and all that, but I understood  pretty fast what "This Folder" was.

I would not preffer having . How's my better half gonna understand that by herself...

[skeeterfood]

Any chance we could get this to work for calculated fields?

I'd love to have a Year\Month\Day calculated field: FormatDate([Date, 0], yyyy\MM\dd)

That created a single Year\Month\Day nested pane like this:
> 2005
v 2006
    v January
         01
         ...
         31
    > February
       ...
    > December
> 2007

-John

[gappie]

Any chance we could get this to work for calculated fields?
-John

yes, that would be nice. there is the &DataType=[ list ] which changes calculated fields in list type, but that does not work for nesting. would be nice for those who want to have genre/subgenre nested, but also a decade/year field or so many other combinations.

[Qythyx]

For the word/symbol to use for "This Folder", how about a not-easily-entered-character like → (which might not show up depending on your encoding, but in HTML is "→" and is a standard Unicode character)?

[Matt]

Added to build 421: (now in testing)
NEW: When editing list-type fields with the Action Window, in-place-edit, or panes, the list will be sorted alphabetically. (let us know if we missed any tagging methods)

[gappie]

what i miss when working with the nestable fields, is the option to add items to 'this folder' when in tagging mode. 

[robydago]

what i miss when working with the nestable fields, is the option to add items to 'this folder' when in tagging mode. 

+1

[skeeterfood]

what i miss when working with the nestable fields, is the option to add items to 'this folder' when in tagging mode. 

Or remove them from 'this folder' when I decide to add another level of hierarchy below it.

Say I have a keyword flowers and I decide I have too many flower pictures and want to split them up into: Flowers\Red, Flowers\Blue, Flowers\Purple.  I select Flowers to filter it down to just the flower pics.  Then, I select all the pictures of Red flowers, then select the checkbox next to New keywords and type in Flowers\Red.  All the pictures of Red flowers are now tagged with the Keywords: Flowers; Flowers\Red, when I'd really prefer they were just tagged with Flowers\Red, since they'll show up under Flowers anyway.

-John

[darichman]

Or remove them from 'this folder' when I decide to add another level of hierarchy below it.

Big fat "yes" on this one for me! I thought this was a bug actually, as This Folder should be only for those with no lower entry in the "Tree"

[pank2002]

I look forward to somebody with the full understanding of this makes a understandable article explaining this feature for those of us who are not as familiar with the advance expressions language of MC ?.

I did play a bit with it, and it seems quite nice, but it is kind of a bugger to have to make all these new keywords, containing slashes. I might be better to simply define how tags related to each other. For example: Boulder belongs to Colorado which belongs to USA in a central place. Pearl Street belongs to Boulder. In that way we would not have to rearrange all of our tags into new keywords.
I might have misunderstood it all. Honestly, I did not understand a lot of the replies to this thread. Nor did I grasp the real meaning of Matt's original post.
-Rasmus

[Cmagic]

Hi,

It looks like I am in the same situation as Rasmus
I don't know if it's a side effect of the age but I seem to be missing many points with the new nestable keywords feature.
When I first read about it I thought, great ! this will allow for more intelligent grouping of the various keywords fields. Especially the new listcombine() function attracted me as I thought it would help me easily combine the people, places and keywords fields.
When I first tried it, I realized that it was a very manual process of adding backslashes in keywords (hence creating new keywords) or drag'n dropping. I Thought the listcombine will help automatize the process, but I could not get it to work the way I thought it would. I always ended up having the expression "=listcombine([keywords],[people])" as a keyword of its own, which is not right.

Obviously I am missing something. It might probably be in the way I understand expressions. A lot has changed in this section during the past couple of years. You can tell, I still have the good old Mediajukebox Icon in my avatar !

I'm ready to go back to MC school !

Christian

[DWAnderson]

It looks like I am in the same situation as Rasmus
I don't know if it's a side effect of the age but I seem to be missing many points with the new nestable keywords feature.
When I first read about it I thought, great ! this will allow for more intelligent grouping of the various keywords fields. Especially the new listcombine() function attracted me as I thought it would help me easily combine the people, places and keywords fields.
When I first tried it, I realized that it was a very manual process of adding backslashes in keywords (hence creating new keywords) or drag'n dropping. I Thought the listcombine will help automatize the process, but I could not get it to work the way I thought it would. I always ended up having the expression "=listcombine([keywords],[people])" as a keyword of its own, which is not right.

Obviously I am missing something. It might probably be in the way I understand expressions. A lot has changed in this section during the past couple of years. You can tell, I still have the good old Mediajukebox Icon in my avatar !

This is a fair question. Here is what I find valuable about these new features.

Take a look at the Wiki page I have added on photo tagging: http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php/Photo_Tagging

Also note there the expression that I use for mass coverting MC fields to XML keyword tags:

=if(IsEmpty([Genre]),,Genre\[Genre];)if(IsEmpty([Event]),,Event\[Event];)if(IsEmpty([Location]),,Location\[Location];)if(IsEmpty([Places]),,Places\[Places];)if(IsEmpty([People]),,People\replace([People],;,;People\))

When multiple files are selected and this is entered in one of the Keywords fields it can convert MC fiels to XML keywords tags for hundreds of photos in one fell swoop.

Others have different things they like about nested keywords in how it helps on viewing and organization.

[datdude]

Hi,

It looks like I am in the same situation as Rasmus
I don't know if it's a side effect of the age but I seem to be missing many points with the new nestable keywords feature.
When I first read about it I thought, great ! this will allow for more intelligent grouping of the various keywords fields. Especially the new listcombine() function attracted me as I thought it would help me easily combine the people, places and keywords fields.
When I first tried it, I realized that it was a very manual process of adding backslashes in keywords (hence creating new keywords) or drag'n dropping. I Thought the listcombine will help automatize the process, but I could not get it to work the way I thought it would. I always ended up having the expression "=listcombine([keywords],[people])" as a keyword of its own, which is not right.

Obviously I am missing something. It might probably be in the way I understand expressions. A lot has changed in this section during the past couple of years. You can tell, I still have the good old Mediajukebox Icon in my avatar !

I'm ready to go back to MC school !

Christian

It sounds like you are having this problem: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=44825.msg307179#msg307179