ŁukaszBachman

The "Dockable windows" are already written down in our roadmap as one of the most important features to evaluate for the UI makeover which may come one day. So if we will decide to deliver new and fresh UI for Intella desktop products, then surely this will be our first discussion.

@Kalin, can you name few of scripting languages used in eDiscovery tools that we could use and which you wish to see in Intella?

Thanks, we appreciate it!

Hi Phil! Is there a reason why you can't place those new PSTs into a subfolder and index it instead? Would it break your workflow in any way? Regardless, your idea seems like a useful feature. If I recall correctly, there was something planned to address that already. I'll double check to make sure that this is added to the roadmap.

No, in reality there is no difference. You can create backups manually by storing whole case folder in a safe location. This feature of Intella was developed for two reasons: to raise awareness of how important backups are; and to help to automate the backup process. Especially the latter was a common problem, as very often users were forgetting about creating copies of their cases. Sometimes it's just that one backup that you skipped when you had to rush out of the office that could save your day.

Good write up. Thanks Adam!

"Beta 1" should be announced within few days (perhaps after the weekend). Official release will follow up in a matter of weeks, but it's highly dependent on the bugs and smaller enhancements that we will discover after Beta sees the daylight.

Ok, so I think I know what might be the issue here. You are running more recent version of Connect (1.7.4 snapshot) which has modified a part of a database in a way that the older version (1.7.3) does not understand. I think that running more recent version of PRO (closer to the version of Connect) would help you out in opening that case again. I will find matching version and send it to you in a private message (posting links to installers on the forum is not allowed). In the meantime, please make sure to back up your case properly. This is always adviced, but of utmost importance when working with interim builds.

Did you use Intella PRO 1.7.3 r27410 to create this case?

Hi Mark! It seems like there is some mismatch between the versions of Intella PRO and Intella Connect that you are using. Can you let me know which versions exactly are you using? - Intella PRO: 1.7.3-r27410 - Intella Connect: 1.7.4-r????? Thanks!

Ok, so the \\xxxx\xxxx\xxxx issue will have to be resolved. I'll create a ticket for this. Most likely it's related to the usage of IE, because we have some custom workarounds for this browser there. Ad6) Yes, this is correct. If you sign in as admin then you are going to the "Admin dashboard". You can still access cases though. Just click on "Cases", then choose your case and click on the link shown in the right panel to navigate to it. Please do remember, though, that admin has also to be added to the case via Authorizations window.

Ok, so I tested this today on fresh case and everything looks OK. I'll describe the steps below. Mark, can you try to reproduce them on some test case? I was using two reviewers: 'lukasz' and 'primoz' I defined following Roles (Permissions in parenthesis): Reviewer ("Can access a case and participate in the review", "Can export items", "Can print item report") Tags admin ("Can delete tags and taggings from other reviewers") Initially I added both users to "Reviewer" role for my test case. I opened two browsers and signed in to a case with both reviewers. Using 'lukasz' I created a tag "new-tag-by-lukasz" and applied it to 2044 items - all good. Using 'primoz' I queried for the same items and also applied 2044 taggings - all good. This is considered a starting point. Both users can access a case and create tags and taggings. Lukasz created the tag, so he is considered a creator of the tag. At this point Lukasz cannot delete taggings made by Primoz and vice versa. Lukasz can't delete the whole tag "new-tag-by-lukasz" as well, because it was used by Primoz to make some taggings. So at that point reviewers can only delete their own taggings and after Primoz will do so, Lukasz will be able to delete the whole tag. To tackle such issues, we have developed the "Can delete tags and taggings from other reviewers" permission which was added to "Tags admin" role. So we will make use of it now. Coming back to "Authorizations" window for my test case, I added "Primoz" to role "Tags admin". Being logged in as Primoz, I first removed all my taggings for "new-tag-by-lukasz" from mentioned 2044 items. To do that, I simply selected those items and clicked used "Remove tags" feature. Then, I expanded "Tags Facet" and right clicked on taggings created by Lukasz. The "Delete" action is now enabled, so I deleted all the taggings created by Lukasz (see screenshot) Then, I right clicked on the "new-tag-by-lukasz" and deleted it as well. That removed all the taggings created by both users and also the "new-tag-by-lukasz' tag. Frankly, removing taggings first was just a way of making sure this all works. If Primoz is granted with "Can delete tags and taggings from other reviewers" permission then he can right click on the tag in the "Tags Facet" and delete the tag along with all taggings created by all the users instantly. I hope that this will help you out with reproducing the flow. Please let us know if everything is understandable now and works as expected.

The short answer is: not yet. We do understand that need, however. Next version of Intella products will contain a newer indexing framework which is built to keep up with extensions of this kind. It will take some time though before we implement something that would fulfill your request. On our roadmap we are also having server side indexing with Connect. When this feature will be ready, I'm sure it will allow to work on cases while next data sources are being indexed and added to the case. Some features might be partially limited, though, for the amount of time that is needed to update certain databases that Intella is managing.

I will have a look at it as it seems a bit weird that having this permission didn't help. I'll get back to you when I determine what might be causing this.

Hi Mark! Let me address your points one by one: We have tested it several times and if you have this permission then you should be able to delete tags and taggings from other people. I will look into this, though, as it sounds like a bug. This was already fixed - have a look at the other post where you originally reported this. True - that is on a roadmap though so we will definitely add it. Could you show me a screenshot of this issue? If I upload "keywords.txt" from my Desktop then exactly this name is used as a label, not the full path. I prefer it that way instead of adding additional name because it nicely identifies the actual file. Correct - this seems like an IE only bug (you know understand how come we advice to use other browsers ). I will create a ticket for this. You can still use "x" to dismiss the modal dialog. User called "admin" has to be authorized to a case just like any other user. This is by design, so please check if admin is added to the authorized reviewers. This seems like some problem with shutting down of a case. I suggest installing the latest available version of Connect and check if this solves the issue. If not (or you are using the latest one already), then please zip the log files from server and shared cases and post a ticket in our support portal. We should be able to help. By the way, which version of Connect are you using? Having this information would help to track the issues.

Hi Mark! I had a look at it and indeed there was some problem with IE9 there. I think I have found a solution for this and I will include it in the next release of Intella Connect. Thanks for reporting this!

Ok, now I understand. In Intella Connect 1.7.3 only administrators are allowed to remove tags and taggings created by other users. In the upcoming release of Intella Connect, there will be a separate permission named "Can delete tags and taggings created by others". Users having this permission will be able to do what you need, even if they are not admins. However, regardless of permissions one should always be able to delete his own taggings or even entire tag (if no other users have used it).

Must have been me Yes guys, this will be implemented in one of future revisions. I am not sure yet if that is going to be a single feature, or a part of a larger "workflow" mechanism as we are thinking about this lately. Would be good to hear more of your ideas in this area, as I expect pretty much each field and company has their own ways of doing things. We are of course keen to learn from that

Hi Mark! You mentioned that you were signed in as case administrator. Can you verify that your username is "admin", not "administrator"? Then you should be able to delete tags and taggings.

@Dougee, we want to add more statistics that would give reviewers a better overview how unique content really is (looking at the whole case). See attached image to get an overview. We are also considering showing a ratio of unique content within the item (for instance: 4/10 meaning that only four paragraphs are unique).

Hi all! Our team has been working on a new feature that can be very helpful to all the users who are using Intella primarily for reviewing large data sets. We are calling it "paragraph level deduplication" or sometimes "shingles" and today I'd like to show you one possible use case for it. But first things first, let's start with a short introduction to what we are after here. Up until now the text extracted from various items was in reality a flat data structure. We were preserving line breaks and separators where possible just to make the text easier to read, but in reality it was one continuous flow of the data. Now, we all know that while doing a review it's not only the raw text that matters. It's also the syntax that yields information and therefore we should present it to the reviewer so he can examine it's value. For instance, a unique, weekly report written by an employee is much more important than yet another joke about the LOL-cats sent across the organization. A forwarded email that you already saw and marked as non-relevant should not get more of your attention - it's the new stuff that matters and needs the most out of your focus. This is something that we want to start addressing in next releases. The idea is to dive one level deeper when analyzing item's contents and focus on every single paragraph. As a starting point we want to compute uniqueness of each of paragraphs and allow you to hide duplicated content from plain sight. This implies that item's textual contents will no longer be presented as a one flow of data, but you will be able to see each paragraph and interact with it. That opens up a lot of new doors, for implementing features like: finding items containing the same paragraphs expanding/collapsing paragraphs marking paragraphs as "seen" which can greatly aid your workflow of finding relevant content colorizing paragraphs (again, faster review) tagging / flagging paragraphs commenting certain paragraphs searching for phrases inside paragraphs showing statistics including paragraphs count (like the % of unique paragraphs in a case) etc. Not all of those features are ready yet or even exist on our roadmap, but these are the things we are thinking of doing. There might be more! So please share your thoughts with us - let us know if and how you are planning to use it. The more feedback we get from the community, the more impact it will have on our priorities for upcoming releases! Attached is a little showcase of how it currently looks like inside the Previewer. It shows a set of 5 emails sent from the same person. In the left column there are original contents with structured text extracted (one can use arrows to toggle each paragraph). We marked 6 paragraphs in this set as "Seen" and turned on "Automatically hide seen paragraphs" option. The right column shows you the same set when we browsed it again. Results: clearly less text to review.

Hi Dale! We are actually looking into that already. Still not sure in which release this feature will see a daylight, but you can rest assured that it's on our roadmap.

Hi Adam! Yeah, you got it quite right :-) The "item content" shouldn't change if no (re)indexing has been done between Friday and Monday. You could also skip the contents of "logs" folder, which are usually quite large as well and are not needed unless you want to report a bug or use them for your own purposes. It's best to copy the rest of the folders, which shouldn't be that large comparing to the mentioned two.

How about having small vertical thumbnails in the right side of the previewer? We have some unoccupied space there, especially on large full-HD monitors. What do you think?

Hi Dale! Interesting idea. Indeed it's often handy to have a direct access to Item's attachments. What would you like to see there, though? Links to attachments that would open new Previewer instances?