Ability to find new file location for specific movies

[Data1001]

This perhaps can be thought of as an expansion of the "open containing folder" option on the right-click menu, combined with the "scan folders for new movies/changed paths" option...

Here's the situation: It seems that I am fairly frequently changing the location of my various specific movies and TV episodes -- i.e., archiving to DVD when I need more space on hard drives, etc. But in all these cases, the filename itself remains unchanged -- it is only the path (and/or drive) which is different.

But the option to scan for new file paths in these circumstances (when only a handful of titles have changed, and you know which ones they are) is a bit like killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer -- that is, it's far more than I need for the task (and sometimes causes quite the unnecessary mess).

What I was thinking is that it'd be nice to have an option on right-click which, upon determining that the file(s) no longer exist in the filepaths stored in the database, give you an option to navigate/browse to a folder (or drive) where they can be found, then doing a file scan within that chosen path, and either auto-update the database with the new location, or do so manually with a yes/no dialog.

Thanks!

[rick.ca]

Cute picture. Is that from TNG S02 E03?

Hope you don't think I'm going Moriarty on you, but I don't understand your suggestion. Right-click on what? If the movie, you already have the option (in edit mode) of using a file selection dialog to select the File path. But doing one movie at a time doesn't make sense if many have changed. Then, it would make more sense to use the Scan folders function, but restrict it to the path which contains all the files that have been moved. In your example, that would be the DVD drive (while the archive DVD is still in it, of course).

[Data1001]

And here I thought my suggestion was elementary. 

Well, my dear Moriarty, here are my issues with your suggested tactics.

Suggestion # 1) It's several extra steps: Go into edit mode, scroll down to the file path field, delete the current entry, browse to the correct file, select, and save the title.
Those steps become even more tedious when considering a television series. If it were possible to select a series title with a right click and have the option of automatically locating the missing files (with the help of a folder selection dialog), one could easily update the paths with a minimum of fuss. Ideally, I'd also like to be able to select multiple titles which I know all have incorrect file paths, then perform this action on them.

Suggestion #2) In my experience, scanning folders comes with inherent issues (such as occasional duplication of titles). More importantly, it does not allow the level of control I would prefer for such a task (as I attempt to explain briefly below).

To clarify my original post: What I am proposing -- and it need not be factored into a context menu, although I feel that's the easiest and most efficient method of implementation -- is a file/folder scan function specifically for updating paths in existing titles, which retains the original file name. Thus, when you tell it to look for this specific filename (or filenames) in a new path, you can be assured that the results it returns will be exactly what you wanted.

As to your first question: either that, or S06E12. Until our next holodeck conversation... "Computer -- end program."

[rick.ca]

As to your first question: either that, or S06E12.

Oops. Even with the world's best video database at my disposal, I missed the second episode. How embarrassing!

In my experience, scanning folders comes with inherent issues (such as occasional duplication of titles).

This is the reason for the different point of view. Using filenames with consistent patterns and a regex properly configured to recognize those patterns, the file scanner will not fail. Thus my second suggestion is recommended in all cases except where there's just one or two movies that need updating and the exact locations of the files are known. Even in that case, the lazy method would be to use the scanner. Sorry, but I don't see the merit in adding a feature to compensate for an existing feature not effectively employed. You should be able to resolve the issue by renaming some files and/or modifying your regex.

There are some issues with the scanner that have yet to be addressed, but I don't think they have any bearing on your issues. They have to do with difficulties in adding multiple files to one movie record (e.g., a movie file and a trailer stored in a different folder).

[Data1001]

In my experience, scanning folders comes with inherent issues (such as occasional duplication of titles).

This is the reason for the different point of view.

Again, I beg to clarify: this is one of the reasons for the different point of view. As I mentioned, in addition to the issues that crop up when using this method, the scan folders option is far more than is needed for the task which I require in these circumstances. Yes, it works -- as does the sledgehammer killing the mosquito -- but rather than having the application look for every potentially new and changed file all across the path I specify, I was merely asking for a more precise method.

Sure, it'd be wonderful if my filenames matched what the application and its author deemed to be the "proper" naming convention.  But doesn't it make sense to have a user interface which accommodates the user, rather than the user having to rename all his files and/or modify the regex to accommodate the software? Especially when there's a simpler alternative? Because the other thing is, it doesn't seem to me like this would be a horribly difficult thing to implement. That's my reasoning for the suggestion: a helpful new way of updating a record (which scores of users could take advantage of), without a Herculean effort involved to program it. It's the same reason I often create macros in office applications for frequently-used tasks -- the time spent setting it up pays off with a more efficient experience. Of course, I could be way off with my notion of its relative programming simplicity -- such areas of expertise are far beyond my ken.

In any case, it was merely a suggestion -- I never expect that when I suggest a feature for the next version of a software it will actually ever be implemented. Still, I continue to do so (here and elsewhere) because I figure the author(s) might possibly be interested in feedback on how people use the software and what they think may make their use of it better than what the existing version currently offers.

Thanks for your response.

[rick.ca]

Sure, it'd be wonderful if my filenames matched what the application and its author deemed to be the "proper" naming convention.  But doesn't it make sense to have a user interface which accommodates the user, rather than the user having to rename all his files and/or modify the regex to accommodate the software?

Of course. And this is exactly what you've been provided with. The author has only made assumptions about file naming conventions in order to provide a default scanner configuration that works with something. He cannot know what your file naming convention is. If you use one the default regex can't handle, it's your responsibility and choice to either change your file names or revise the scanner configuration so it works. It's not difficult to do—one or the other. The only thing it can't handle is the absence of any regex-discernible pattern in the file names.

Yes, it works -- as does the sledgehammer killing the mosquito...

This is not a valid characterization. As I stated before, you have a choice to set the path "manually" or use the scanner. You don't have to direct the scanner to scan your entire HDD or all video paths. You can direct it to scan whatever folders you want. It will then scan all the files in that location—very quickly—and find all the paths that have changed.

Because the other thing is, it doesn't seem to me like this would be a horribly difficult thing to implement.

I'm sure it wouldn't. It's just a bad idea. It's only purpose to accommodate a refusal to use the program in the way it was designed. Adding such "features" just confuses the matter more. Users naturally assume there's a reason for a feature. So the existence of such things steer users away from the recommended way of using the program, thereby making it more difficult to understand, learn and use.

Please don't think I don't respect your right to use the program in any way you like, and make any suggestion you please. I commented first to help with something important you were apparently missing. But if you choose to ignore my advice, I really don't care. But there's another reason I comment on such things—to correct the false impression they likely create for other readers who may not know better. So, for example, when you say...

In my experience, scanning folders comes with inherent issues (such as occasional duplication of titles).

...I think it's important others understand this experience is a result of your own choices, not any deficiency in the design of the program.

[Data1001]

It's just a bad idea. It's only purpose to accommodate a refusal to use the program in the way it was designed. Adding such "features" just confuses the matter more. Users naturally assume there's a reason for a feature. So the existence of such things steer users away from the recommended way of using the program, thereby making it more difficult to understand, learn and use.

You seem to be assuming that I'm acting stubbornly because I have suggested something that, in my opinion, will make my workflow more efficient -- and because I want to see if there's a better and easier way of doing things. You also seem to be assuming a lot about other users, and whether they'd find such an idea more confusing or less confusing, I think. To you, it may sound like useless clutter. To me, it sounds like more simplicity. It's not that I'm "ignoring your advice", but your suggestions simply did not seem to me to be as elegant a solution as the one I was envisioning. It's your right to call my ideas bad, but that's your opinion. I just don't see that what you've suggested are better options than my proposal. Certainly, what you've suggested is the only current way of doing things, and so that's what I've been doing, and likely will need to continue doing for the life of the program.

Nonetheless, I don't think we're getting anywhere with this conversation, so I'm going to bow out before this just cycles further into something unproductive and nasty. But feel free to grab the last word, if you want it -- and something tells me that you do. 

::shrug:: Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on the matter, and that you always have shown an excellent grasp of the program whenever I have questions about something. Cheers.