New interface overlay panel akin to the Advanced Find Panel and Common Tasks Menu Item as Standard

Dear Jonathon and Leo,

I propose an enhancement to improve the usability of Directory Opus (DO) for our users, specifically by introducing a new tool. This tool could either be a user-generated JScript button-initiated function or, ideally, a thoughtfully crafted enhancement to DO's core functionality. I envision a new interface overlay panel akin to the Advanced Find Panel but with broader functionalities and a new Common Tasks Menu Item as Standard. The approach to this tool reflects our commitment to enhancing user experience. Inspired by the Advanced Find Panel, the interface will be designed for intuitiveness and ease of use, leveraging existing functions of Directory Opus to streamline tasks related to file classification and directory cleaning. This design philosophy will ensure users can manage their files effectively without encountering unnecessary complexity.

The proposed tool, 'CleanUP,' is intended to be a valuable addition to Directory Opus. It will support users in quickly organising existing directories that may have lost their structure over time. These directories often contain various files, folders, and compressed archives characterised by diverse naming conventions and types. Common challenges include deeply nested directories, duplicate files, and naming conflicts. There are instances where files might share the same name but differ in content, creation dates, or file types, resulting in noticeable disorganisation.

Once developed, the 'CleanUP' tool will integrate seamlessly into Directory Opus, significantly transforming the user experience. It will simplify merging folders, eliminating duplicates, and organising folder structures. Moreover, it will empower users to rename items and categorise files into subfolders based on specific criteria. Implementing this tool will significantly enhance the coherence and navigability of directory structures, especially in content-heavy areas such as download and project folders. A new menu item labelled 'Common Tasks' could also feature 'CleanUP' as its first option in the dropdown.

Smooth operations during file movement and merging are critical, necessitating preliminary checks on file permissions. The complexities of copying and relocating files, particularly within deeply nested directories, which should never be more than three levels deep, demand an initial automated audit of all file and directory names before any renaming actions. It is often necessary to merge folders containing similar or duplicate content, and custom subroutines may need to be developed to simplify overly complex folder hierarchies. A simple file and folder structure enhances working efficiency. It will facilitate the standardisation of folder and file names according to user-defined specifications, such as adding specific characters or creation dates. Furthermore, it is essential to identify and eliminate duplicate and empty files and folders. Files should also be organised into subfolders based on date, file type, or user-defined categories, granting users complete control over their directories' structure and naming conventions.

The objective of this tool extends beyond mere directory cleaning; it is about enabling users to exert control over their file organisation. The 'CleanUP' tool will offer flexibility to adapt to various user scenarios and needs, ensuring that file movement and merging processes are carried out efficiently and accurately. Users can dictate their directories' final arrangement and content, managing naming conventions adapted to different folder categories, such as work, home, leisure, eBooks, images, and videos. Additionally, incorporating a saved profile system will allow users to modify their cleaning preferences as necessary swiftly.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to your feedback.

Best regards,

Mark Buckton

Why don't you ask the AI to summarize what it generated but into a single paragraph? It's kind of exhausting to read the same thing over and over without it really saying anything.

And besided all the gibberish, the AI "forgot" to specify in detail (a detailed example) what criteria could be used for "cleaning and organizing" directories.

Jokes aside, I bet if it did, it would look very similar to the filter creation feature already offered by DOpus, which can be used for things like deletion, renaming, etc.

2 Likes

This whole incident is a "storm in a teacup." I did not use AI to write the initial or amended feature request; that is a ridiculous assertion. However, what I am requesting is essential to give Directory Opus a broader appeal, especially to less tech-savvy users. AI cannot write anything without specific prompting. I admit that I tend to be a descriptive writer, which my son constantly criticises me for. Thus, I initially asked AI to put my request into point form and write a brief, expecting the information to be more tech-readable. Unfortunately, it did much more than I had asked, including writing a JScript outline code. Programmers are very scared about AI, hence the overreaction. I would be, too, if I had devoted my life to that aim. And then find I have become obsolete. I still remember when we had butchers, bakers and candler stick makers. I am a retired civil engineer, so I know all these feelings roads and drainage are now primarily designed by expert software systems. It's only a matter of time when machines replace all our man's intellectual pursuits.

I find it hard to believe that wasn't written by AI, especially having seen the even longer (several pages long) version yesterday.

In any case, what are we supposed to do with it?

Parts of it don't make sense and seem like phrases randomly copy & pasted from other documents.

Despite the number of words, there is no actual detail here about what you want, just some very vague ideas about automatically organising files in a completely unspecified way.

We aren't scared of it. We're tired of people wasting our time (and theirs) with the garbage it generates.

For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself; woe to those with no imagination. Yes, there are many ways to organise a directory of files, but there is also the concept of best practice. So, for those with no imagination, here is the best tool I have seen Easy File Organizer - Organise Files in One Click, although it does not do all that is required or desired.

TLDR: ChatGPT wants the Dopus devs to put ChatGPT in Dopus.
(I couldn't imagine why an AI system would want access to peoples' personal file managerπŸ˜‚)

Jokes aside, I've asked for some automatic actions too. Much of what's being asked can be done by setting things up. But what's being asked here is full blown AI. The day they put AI in Dopus, well I guess it's back to Windows Explorer. A while ago I had about a five minute experience with Notion. Installed it. "Hi how can our AI help you?" Uninstalled it. One star review, blocked Notion from any social media contact. Reported their email as spam (which it is by definition). AI can F itself twice.

But accusations of someone being a bot is always pretty rude. I even got a harassment warning on another forum for asking a guy if we was a bot. (Although it was true cause I was trying to piss him off. Cause he was following me with bad answers cause he wasn't reading what I wrote, which was pissing me off).

There are people who can't navigate the English language very well, especially if it's not their first language, so sometimes they seem bot like. Or use a translator outright. So it's not always easy to tell the difference. But for this post, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Even the responses are suspect. But he's been here for a while so maybe he's just testing out a chat bot and thought it was pretty cool.

The problem with AI use is the users and devs of it will never stop unless they are forced too. They are like an evil that never sleeps; a pouring out of orcs from the tower, drowning the world of men in darkness. People using it have already showed a moral bankruptcy, seeing as the data source was already stolen from day one. Using peoples' work as the source to compete and destroy those same workers' livelihoods. Causing good people to pay for their own demise. So it's no wonder the same people use it for all manner of unethical, illegal and otherwise damaging acts.

I better go do something else before I start ranting.

1 Like

This is OP summarised (by copilot - 20 words)

I propose enhancing Directory Opus with a user-friendly 'CleanUP' tool to organise, merge, and streamline files and directories effectively.

This is @ASUNDER above post sumarised by chatGPT-o (50 words)

ChatGPT advocates integration into Dopus by developers. Despite potential automation benefits, achieving full AI capability requires significant development. Concerns arise over AI misuse and ethical implications, exacerbated by data exploitation issues. Perceptions of AI as a tool for both productivity and harm persist, necessitating cautious implementation and ethical guidelines.

and here is a poem from copilot

In the silicon dance, the Central Processor leads,
A maestro commanding, fulfilling all needs.
By its side, the Collective Processor stands,
Together they conquer data’s lands.
The Arithmetic Processor, precise and bright,
Calculates swiftly, both day and night.
This trio harmonizes in digital delight,
Turning zeros and ones into sheer computing might.

Central procesor = CPU

Collective procesor = GPU

Arithmetic processor = ALU

Copy, Rename, and Find already handle this. Did I miss what's new?

(I am surprised to see such a proposal coming from someone who joined the forum in 2008)

I have alluded to this: the power is already in the program but is fragmented. Users can clean directories using a series of extant DO commands, but what if one has to organise tens of thousands of folders and millions of files? I know how slow this can be as I am currently trying to archive my old work data to a new NAS system, which is taking forever. The reason for this is that people tend to be lazy. Although one may have an official office schema on how files should be named and what folders should be in a typical parent directory, people (especially engineers) ignore the rules and do what is expedient. Having run an engineering and drafting office for over 30 years, I am always amazed at how slack people can be. Programs like Autocad don't load drawings if drawing reference paths are too long. Database breaking is just one example of why there is a best-practice way of organising files and directories. Lawyers and solicitors, for example, are also very focused on such issues, and if you ever have to sue someone, you will know why. After having used DO for many years now, I can see that the program has reached maturity, and it is now time to incorporate features that are more targeted at specific user needs.

1 Like

The problem with specific user needs is that they are ... specific to one user (or at least small groups of users).
To clarify, let's take an example : I see many requests on different behaviours expected from the folder tree : I don't use it at all (too many drives, too many folders, some files spread among differents SSD due to those disks size limit, etc ...).
I use layouts and tab groups a lot, many people won't.
I'll stop here, there would be lots of other use cases or workflow differences between all the users.
As a side note, I often see in the posts here users claiming such feature should be working "that way" because it's so obvious that is would better suit their workflow/approach to using that feature, often considering that if they do, everyone is probably also approaching it that way. Unfortunately, it's often far from the truth.

I think the power of Directory Opus is twofold :

  • A very large base of out-of-the-box commands and features (from basic file operations to renaming, finding, aliases, etc ...)
  • The ability to customize not only the interface and the preferences but all of these commands in so many ways that most users won't even need it all (but that allows that user to use the one that suits the most to its use-case and workflows) ... not to mention that it also allows through scripting (which requires some skills that one would need to learn or ask for help on this very forum) the possibility to extend these commands.

At some point, trying to address too specific things leads to the risk of limiting the user base which will really benefit from it, so, I would personnaly prefer either extensions of existing features so they offer more flexibility (but I'm not sure there is a lot more to cover here) or the introduction of new "global" concepts that could apply to many situations across the program (good recent examples would be the evaluator or the FAYT scripts).

Of course, this remains a personal opinion, and I have no doubt others will disagree :slight_smile:

3 Likes

You're still not giving any actual examples of what you want to do or how it should be done.

You seem to want a piece of software that will magically guess how you want all your files organised and put them in the places you intuitively want them put. That's too vague for anyone to actually implement. No one but you has any idea how you want your files organised.

2 Likes

@PassThePeas

Well said. Case closed from my standpoint.

Here's an example of a best-practice folder structure for a multi-stage engineering project, considering all your requirements, including AutoCAD limitations, file tagging, version/revision control, and policies for handling raw data and archive files.

Project Folder Structure

Root Folder

[ProjectNumber]_[ProjectName] Example: 1234_BridgeDesign

Level 1 Subfolders

  1. 01_Admin
  • For project setup, contracts, and general correspondence.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_Correspondence_In
    • 02_Correspondence_Out
    • 03_Contracts
    • 04_Meeting_Minutes
    • 05_Permits
  1. 02_Data
  • For raw, unchanging data.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_LandSurvey
    • 02_SitePhotos
    • 03_Mapping
    • **Policy:**Mark raw data as read-only.
    • Include a ReadMe.txt in each subfolder explaining the data source and when it was collected.
    • Compress/archive only for external transfer; retain uncompressed copies internally.
  1. 03_Design
  • For AutoCAD drawings and related files.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_Drafts
    • 02_Models
    • 03_XREFs (keep XREFs local to this folder for AutoCAD compatibility)
  • Policy:
    • Use relative paths for AutoCAD references.
    • Enforce a consistent naming scheme (e.g., [ProjectNumber]_Sheet##_Rev#.dwg).
    • Track revisions through embedded metadata and a Revision_Log.xlsx file in the folder.
  1. 04_Reports
  • For documentation deliverables.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_Drafts
    • 02_Final
  • File Naming Convention: [ProjectNumber]_ReportType_Version#_YYYY-MM-DD.docx.
  1. 05_Finance
  • For cost estimates, invoices, and financial documents.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_Estimates
    • 02_Invoices
    • 03_PurchaseOrders
  1. 06_Archive
  • For compressed files or old versions that are not active but need to be retained.
  • Subfolders:
    • 01_ProjectArchives
    • 02_DataArchives
    • **Policy:**Always include a manifest.txt explaining the content of compressed files.
    • Use ZIP compression with clear naming (e.g., [ProjectNumber]_LandSurveyArchive_2024-06-01.zip).

File Naming and Tagging

  • File Name Template:
  • [ProjectNumber]_[FileType]_[Description]_[Version#]_[Date].[Extension]
  • Example: 1234_DWG_SitePlan_V1_2024-01-15.dwg
  • Tagging Strategy:
    • Use metadata tagging tools (e.g., Windows File Explorer Details pane or third-party software) to add:
      • Project number
      • Project stage
      • Responsible person
    • Example: A tag for a survey file might include:
      • Project: 1234
      • Category: Raw Data
      • Stage: Preliminary

Version and Revision Control

  1. File-Level Control:
  • Use a versioning system in file names (e.g., V1, V2).
  • Final revisions use Final instead of a version number.
  • Include a Revision_Log.xlsx in each folder to document:
    • Changes made
    • Date of change
    • Responsible person
  1. Software Tools:
  • Use version control software (e.g., SharePoint, Git, or SVN) for collaborative projects.
  • Set up backup policies for automatic snapshots.

Policies for Preventing Accidental File Movement

  1. Role-Based Access:
  • Restrict permissions to specific folders based on team roles (e.g., only surveyors can edit raw data).
  1. File Monitoring:
  • Use file monitoring software to track changes and movements.
  1. File Recovery:
  • Regular backups with retention policies (e.g., daily incremental, weekly full backups).

Folder Structure Example

1234_BridgeDesign β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_Admin β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_Correspondence_In β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 02_Correspondence_Out β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 03_Contracts β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 04_Meeting_Minutes β”‚ └── 05_Permits β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 02_Data β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_LandSurvey β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 02_SitePhotos β”‚ └── 03_Mapping β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 03_Design β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_Drafts β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 02_Models β”‚ └── 03_XREFs β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 04_Reports β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_Drafts β”‚ └── 02_Final β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 05_Finance β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 01_Estimates β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ 02_Invoices β”‚ └── 03_PurchaseOrders β”‚ └── 06_Archive β”œβ”€β”€ 01_ProjectArchives └── 02_DataArchives

This structure provides clarity, consistency, and minimizes the risk of accidental data misplacement while meeting your operational needs. Let me know if you'd like adjustments to fit specific project types!

And how do you expect Directory Opus (or probably any generic software) to automagically reorganize your files that way ?

Not to mention, that on my end, for the root folder, I'd rather have [Date as YYYYMMDD]_[ProjectNumber]_[ProjectName] ... should it be an option somewhere ?

Not to be antagonizing; serious reply. Do you use Microsoft Project?
Some of your business operations is probably better in the hands of Microsoft, to be honest.
Not to put anyone down, but these are the kinds of things they do best.

As someone who uses both DOpus and Microsoft Project, I understand your intent. That said, they are two entirely different applications that exist for different reasons.

One could see a DOpus script/button that would generate your desired folder structure, but actually sorting files into said folders automagically... I can't see that happening.

And if Microsoft does this stuff best, it's puzzling they haven't included such a function in File Explorer.

1 Like

Honestly, this thread is going nowhere.
It seems the request is to have a tool that can reorganize files and folders at will ... but even that will is not clear. All we get is some example of what could be an ideal structure for a specific type of project (AutoCAD). It includes stuff as version control and per user permissions.
All that IS NOT the role of a file manager but either of the people who work on such projects or of a tool (as you mentioned MS Project, even if it's not what its used for) that will organize it for you when you use it to work on your project..

@Mbuck : If I were to reorganize part of my files in a structured way, what I'd do :

  • Define the specific structure I want (my advice, especially if you're dealing with the number of files, like millions, you mentioned, would be to keep it quite simple)
  • Analyze the way your files are currently organized
  • And try to find rules to move them (or most of them, to keep the remaining manual actions as low as possilbe). Be very careful when dealing with files coming from software that save their projects as folders : if you break those folders structures/contents, they won't be able to open them anymore.

Rules could be based on date/time, metadata, current folder structure/names, ...

Once you have that, build function with Opus (or something else) to automate the execution of these rules.

But as you said, if the organization of the files is erratic due to the fact that the people were too lazy to respect some kind of framework, then that job has to be done now ...

Because they don't make any money putting it in File Explorer.
But their business tools are second to none, as businesses can and will pay for it.

I'm with you on your requests. There's lots of helpful systems described there.
My motto is to let the computer do the work. I'm willing to invest a considerable amount of set up time to build permanent efficiency systems that return a little bit of benefit over time, that perpetually stacks up. I see you are like minded. Our products are in different industries but we both manage data, that we want our computer to configure based on our patterns of behavior. Not based on waiting for us to manually enter information, like a stubborn donkey that doesn't learn its masters will.

Yeah, Microsoft! I would not trust Microsoft to do anything adroitly. Steve Jobs was correct. See:
https://youtu.be/7eC8u3_bBDg. A case in point is why the start button organises applications only into an alphabetical list. I don't know if my mind is unusually wired, but I have always been task-focused. So, at least they should have a way to organise programs into categories, preferably automatically, like Internet, Email, Work, Imaging, CAD, eBooks, Search, System, Startup, etc. Okay, I agree that everyone will have different categories, but again, any tool needs maximum flexibility. I believe the success of Directory Opus is due to its flexibility. However, when programs become too flexible, they lose focus.

An example of this was Microsoft Office. If you recall, it became so unwieldy that Microsoft lost sales to more task-focused alternatives. Fortunately, at that time, they listened, and although many had bemoaned their solution, they were forced to change its user interface, the now infamous "ribbon interface." I am not saying any of this high-level abstraction stuff is easy to pull off, but when a software developer does get the interface balance correct for the majority of users, then copies of such a program fly out the door

1 Like