Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
From: Prof Wonmug on 4 May 2010 19:39
Is there a way to see the entire hierarchy of folders for a message in
the Search Results window?

I just did a search of all mail folders (Outlook 2007). It returned
about 20 results. In the "In Folder" column, it only gives the name of
the folder the message is in, not the whole folder tree. I have a
somewhat complicated folder tree structure and I would prefer not to
have to open all of the branches looking for the correct subfolder. In
some cases, there may be more than one folder with the same name.

From: Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] on 4 May 2010 22:07
Not as far as I know. Search results return the item, not the tree.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
ALWAYS post your Outlook version.
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375


After furious head scratching, Prof Wonmug asked:

| Is there a way to see the entire hierarchy of folders for a message in
| the Search Results window?
|
| I just did a search of all mail folders (Outlook 2007). It returned
| about 20 results. In the "In Folder" column, it only gives the name of
| the folder the message is in, not the whole folder tree. I have a
| somewhat complicated folder tree structure and I would prefer not to
| have to open all of the branches looking for the correct subfolder. In
| some cases, there may be more than one folder with the same name.


From: Prof Wonmug on 5 May 2010 01:14
On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:07:01 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
<what(a)ever> wrote:

>Not as far as I know. Search results return the item, not the tree.

Only in Outlook. Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in
the drawer, provides the full path and right-clicking offers the
option of opening the containing folder.
From: VanguardLH on 5 May 2010 19:00
Prof Wonmug wrote:

> Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in the drawer, provides
> the full path and right-clicking offers the option of opening the
> containing folder.

Tis why you need to use *unique* names for "folders" in Outlook. Rather
than have:

Inbox
|___ Inbox


where the top folder is the default Inbox folder and the subfolder is, say,
where you hold e-mails for awhile, a search would just show "Inbox" for both
folders. So use something like:

Inbox
|___ Hold

There are no real folders in Outlook. That's why Windows Explorer operates
differently. The display of "folders" in Outlook is only for organizational
purposes: to show an arbitrary hierachy of records in the message store.
All items are stored in just one file (.pst). The database doesn't need
folders to track records. That structure is solely for the benefit of the
user to organize the records. There are no folders or files in Outlook's
message store, just records inside of one database file.

All POP and Exchange accounts get aggregated into one message store. Each
IMAP account gets its own message store. Each HTTP account gets its own
message store. Each message store gets its own tree "folder" hierarchy
shown in Outlook. So if you have multiple accounts that result in multiple
trees shown in Outlook, they will each have, say, an Inbox folder. Since
you don't (and can't) rename that delivery folder, but you still want to see
from which account a folder is associated, add the "E-mail Account" column
to the Advanced Find results. Alas, that customized view won't stick and
will be absent when you close that dialog window and later do another
Advanced Find.
From: Prof Wonmug on 6 May 2010 02:01
On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:00:46 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>
>> Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in the drawer, provides
>> the full path and right-clicking offers the option of opening the
>> containing folder.
>
>Tis why you need to use *unique* names for "folders" in Outlook. Rather
>than have:
>
> Inbox
> |___ Inbox
>

I need to use unique names because Outlook is even stoopider than Win
explorer?

In any case, unique folders won't solve the problem, as I said in my
post. I have probably 50-60 "folders" in all, maybe more. I can't
remember each name or which leg of the tree they are in. I also move
them around from time to time.

>where the top folder is the default Inbox folder and the subfolder is, say,
>where you hold e-mails for awhile, a search would just show "Inbox" for both
>folders. So use something like:
>
> Inbox
> |___ Hold
>
>There are no real folders in Outlook. That's why Windows Explorer operates
>differently. The display of "folders" in Outlook is only for organizational
>purposes: to show an arbitrary hierachy of records in the message store.
>All items are stored in just one file (.pst). The database doesn't need
>folders to track records. That structure is solely for the benefit of the
>user to organize the records. There are no folders or files in Outlook's
>message store, just records inside of one database file.
>
>All POP and Exchange accounts get aggregated into one message store. Each
>IMAP account gets its own message store. Each HTTP account gets its own
>message store. Each message store gets its own tree "folder" hierarchy
>shown in Outlook. So if you have multiple accounts that result in multiple
>trees shown in Outlook, they will each have, say, an Inbox folder. Since
>you don't (and can't) rename that delivery folder, but you still want to see
>from which account a folder is associated, add the "E-mail Account" column
>to the Advanced Find results. Alas, that customized view won't stick and
>will be absent when you close that dialog window and later do another
>Advanced Find.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.

This is a design defect -- just one of many.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities