ŁukaszBachman

Hi jthacker48, We don't have a dedicated processor for Slack yet, but we can consider adding support for it. Do you happen to know if there are any public Slack datasets which we could use for analysis?

Hi Todd, Are you using different tagging strategies often? I'm just thinking if it makes sense to have those settings being visible all the time.

Hi Brendan, All of this is on our radar. Each next release of Connect will have some improvements in Admin Dashboard section, so the features you mention will likely be added when we get to refurbishing Users & Permissions management sections.

We already have such an improvement on our radar. We basically wanted to create few "templates" which could be applied by a simple keystroke. For example, if you press "1" you'd code item as "Privileged > Yes", "Reason > X" but if you press "2" then you'd apply "Privileged > Yes", "Reason > Y". This feature awaits some development time granted for enhancements in Review UI.

Hi Fuzed, You are right that Coding Panel respects only two levels of tags hierarchy. That is by design and I think it's also the first time someone rises that to be an issue. We've chosen this path mainly because too much hierarchy in Coding Panel would eat up real estate of that UI element and it could quickly clutter it. Two levels seemed enough to tackle most scenarios. Note that usually for First Pass Review and Second Pass Review people are reusing the same (or similar) coding layout (mapped to the same tags) and they are just calling batches like in this example: FPR-1...FPR-10, SPR-1...SPR-10 Point taken about moving tags between branches in tags facet. I agree that it could be handy to move tags instead of deleting them. I'll check if we have this covered somewhere.

Hi fuzed, Can't you just run a boolean query, ex. "look AND see AND find" for all 5 keywords?

Hi Fuzed, We have some plans for enhancements in deduplication features already and the thing you are describing is also on that list. They will all be probably included in bulk, as a part of one of future releases.

Hi Karel, Based solely on that information it's hard to say what's the current status of your tags, but judged from your description it could be that your changes were not synced to disk before the power failure. It should be noted that Intella products have plenty of safenets guarding your data consistency and preventing such situations, but those mechanisms can't give you 100% guarantee against power failure. That's why we are always advising to keep regular backups of your cases. Also, if you own a copy of regular Intella products (not Connect), then you can try reparing your tags database. This is covered in "10.10 Restoring annotations" section of User Manual. I hope that helps! Łukasz

Hi kenh199, Thanks, we will consider adding such enhancement.

Hi Fuzed, I think your idea with intermediate tags could work. You could also just conduct each search and add results to the same tag (ex. "Keywords results"). Then you can use the Date Facet to pick a date range and use "Include" button (instead of "Search"). That will show you only items tagged as "Keywords results" which are also included in selected date range. At this point I'd tag this as "Keywords results with date", for quality assurance. Last step would be to deduplicate your results, which will make sure that you don't waste time on reviewing duplicates. It would be wise to tag those as "Final results" too. If I understood you correctly, then I think that this will satisfy your use case. Please check, thought, if final results are matching your expectations.

Hi fuzed! That depends on the version of Intella Connect you are using. Starting with Intella Connect 2.1, batches are sorted chronologically.

Hi ccossett, Both use cases make sense. We have already planned few improvements in Users section, I'll make sure that improved auditing is included there too. Can't say though in which exact release those will be included.

Very happy to hear that!

@Kalin, I agree with you, we have exactly such extensions in mind. It's just a matter of finding the right time for them in our release cycle, which is already quite tight. We can't promise when these features will be delivered, but I'll make sure that your feedback is captured in our internal systems.

Hi Ankur, Glad I could help!

Hi AnkurM, A solution to your first question could be to create a special redaction profile and making sure that attachments are included there. That way you can control what should be included in a redacted PDF. Unfortunately you can't change a redaction profile for items which already have redactions applied (without re-doing the redaction), but I hope this will help you out in future. As for the second question, did you select "Number pages" in the "File naming and numbering" wizard section? Along with adding "PAGE_NAME" field in "Headers and footers", that should be all to do.

Hi Questa Integrity, You should compare MD5 and Message Hashes for two emails that you consider duplicates and see if they match. If they are different then it means that some difference in your evidence is causing that. Two exact message hashes will mean that items are considered duplicates. For details about hashing algorithms used in Intella please check out section "14.1.17 MD5 and Message Hash" in our User Manual.

Hi fuzed, Unfortunately we don't have an opposite permission yet so you'll need to make use of the "Cannot see items..." permission. Note that you can't tag parents of the files you wish to keep seeing, because that permission also hides all descendants (so if you tag parents that would include the files you wish to retain).

Having 1.7.x installed for such cases is a good idea. Keep in mind that this version was released 5 years ago, which translates to 5 years of ongoing improvements and modifications of our databases. This makes migration path between major versions complex, so if you want to be on a safe side it's best to open a case in version where it was created (unless you badly need a feature from more recent release). This of course doesn't mean that we don't provide backwards compatibility layer. We pay very close attention to that matter and we never leave our users without clear instructions how to proceed. Each time we issue a new release we also publish "Release notes" document. The last section is always about case migration and backwards compatibility, so please get familiar with those instructions if you want to be pro-active about supporting old cases.

Great to hear that! Thanks!

Hi fuzed, You'll need to create a new case. 1.7.3 is really old so it's best if you would train your users with most up to date version.

Vound is pleased to announce the official release of Intella and Intella Connect 2.1.1. Intella and Intella Connect 2.1.1 are available from the Downloads section in the Vound Support Portal, after logging in with your email address and password. Users with a 2.0 license need to use the Dongle Manager to update their dongle to the 2.1 license. Please read the Release Notes before installing or upgrading, to ensure you do not affect any active cases. Highlights Added retrieval of information stored in in iCloud accounts. Added support for indexing XPS documents and XLSB spreadsheets. Improved handling of decrypted items. Resigned the table column chooser to scale to more columns, allow for storing the current column setup as a template for later use, and more. Added Content Analysis columns, showing information such as credit card numbers, locations, and the outcome of regular expressions. Various performance, stability, and accuracy improvements.

Yes, you can also share Saved Searches in a similar way. You can also import & export them via an XML file.

@fuzed, over the years we've found that most of issues with Windows Service not starting is due to a credentials issue. So if you run into issues double check in Windows' Services dialog if you provided the right credentials (just locate Intella Connect Service, then right click and choose Properties and go to Log On tab to re-enter them again).

Hi fuzed, We are actively developing and running Connect under Win 10. I don't remember anyone having experienced similar issues. I'd advise to first make sure that it works fine when access locally, then using telnet to access remote IP and provided port and see what it shows you. It could be some Windows settings that make the service closed to incoming connections. Firewall would've been my first guess, but maybe Windows Defender plays a role too? Please share your findings with others.