ŁukaszBachman

Hi Adam! Some good ideas here! > Maybe even just 'sort by type'... We have plans to offer custom sorting options for this view, so it will come. > Doc ID visible Yes, we've been missing this one too. We wanted to include Item IDs from the beginning but I couldn't find any good place to fit it yet. As soon as wrap my head around it I'll add this one. > Select Multiple Keyword Lists Sounds like a good idea. If your lists are short you can still type the keywords manually though. > Ability to elevate some privileges for users I'll have to rethink this one. One one hand it seems like a valid thing to ask for, but on the other - shouldn't QA be enforced on top of the standard review process? I mean, why wouldn't senior not query for certain items in a batch and use a standard previewer to perform his checks? He could also change tags which are applied there and it would be reflected in the coding panels (although one has to be careful with how progress is measured then). All in all I'm not against it, but I'd like to hear other opinions too.

Just try selecting some tags and hitting the "space" bar - you should get what you need. You can press "SHIFT + ?" while in the Review UI to see available keyboard accelerators.

That would indeed be my preference. You can also use Features Facet to easily find all tagged items, create a tag "all" for them and use it to create batches.

Thanks Adam, I'll consider this. In the meantime one can sort batches by Assignee to easily check if any of them has noone assigned yet. By the way, don't you want to have some batches unassigned on purpose (so that they stay in the available pool)? That way users will have the option to take one batch from the pool, review it (complete it) and take another one.

Hi Adam, we have plans to better render calendar-like entries in future versions of Intella and Intella Connect. Having a Raw Data tab could be a workaround, but we wanted to keep the embedded previewer as simple as possible. Let's see if improved rendering would help here to diminish this need.

It is possible to do it right now, although user needs to have a special permission to do so. Please have a look at the bundled documentation which describes this.

Agreed - we'll add such permission in the next version of Intella Connect.

Hi Adam! Thanks for spotting this. You are right that it shouldn't happen. We'll fix that in a future version of Intella Connect.

Adam, I wanted to add that in Connect you could queue these export tasks easily, as Exports in Intella Connect are queued by default. So you basically define 15 export tasks and they will be prepared for you one-by-one.

Hi Adam! I was hoping that you could use our "Command-line support" for this (section 23 in User Manual). Using this tool you could create a task that would take results tagged with, say, "PST-1" tag and export them in background. Writing a simple .BAT file which would run this actions in a loop for all 15 tags could do wonders then. Unfortunately it seems that currently it's only possible to execute a task file after the Indexing process is finished. And you clearly don't want to reindex your case each time before exporting starts. So it's not possible at the moment, however I will create a request for this extension to be added. I can see how this would be helpful.

In Intella Connect 1.9.1 we added the Review UI, which allows reviewers to work on a Batch of items. I was thinking about extending each Batch with a "Reviewing time" property. It would be updated periodically (every 5-30 seconds) if we detect any user activity. That would give a quite good estimation on how much time was spent on the review. What do you all think? Clearly it's not perfect, as someone can forget to turn off the browser's tab when he goes out for lunch, however there is also a way to get around that. Simply render an overlay with a timer and a button "I'm here, let me continue the review". That would show up if user is Idle for let's say 5 minutes (could be configurable).

Adam, I have concerns that different experts would use different tools for that matter. Or is Passware the most well known and widely used tool? Also, we'd have to take into consideration the performance penalty of such operation. Intella would have to lock the UI while items get decrypted. Does it take a long time to decrypt those files? Any concrete idea on how this would suppose to work?

@Adam, no. If there are no required fields in a given Coding Layout, then you can browse all items freely and "review document later" does not really play any role then.

Hi wmfiske, although that would be possible to add I am not sure if querying for item URIs is a very popular scenario. What I can suggest you is to run a CSV export for items of your interest and produce a list of their IDs. Then you can feed it to IDs List facet easily.

Hi fuzed! I'm afraid that currently there is no such tools built in into Intella Connect. For the time being you could have some success in analyzing Connect's Case log files where each request reaching the server also logs in authenticated username (note the 'admin' username). Example: [INFO ] 2016-03-11 10:54:15,796 [qtp1858952830-110] 2016-03-11 10:54:15 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 admin 127.0.0.1 0 GET /partials/main-app/facet-md5.html - 200 1069 0 1 http://localhost:5189 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/49.0.2623.87 Safari/537.36 http://localhost:9999/shared/basic/index.html Clever filtering of those logs could give you time spans during which user was active and that could help you to count the amount of time spent on review. Note that calls to /events resource are performed automatically by our application, so those do not origin in user's activity. Another option would be to scan Activity Stream ("Activities" tab) to see when user was active and once again compute the time that was spent on a review. In future we might consider simplifying this and counting review time automatically. If you have any suggestions on that topic, please share with us here.

Hi Dale! Would it be possible for you to measure the amount of memory that some of those cases consume? You see we already have the mechanism that puts cases to sleep (I'm sure you are aware of that). One can notice that when he opens a case URL and see the "Your case is being prepared" screen. When case is asleep it should hardly consume any resources. Perhaps something is causing your cases not to go asleep or they consume more memory that we thought they would?

Adam, I think that your understanding is correct. Each case shares only the data that it contains. If security is of a concern then I advice to run external audit on your infrastructure (including Connect) so that you identify (and hopefully eliminate) security flaws that could compromise your critical data.

Hi pmow! For authentication you should use the CN of an LDAP entry who can perform LDAP lookups (queries). An example from my AD below. Did that not work for you? <authUserDn>CN=admin,OU=SBSUsers,OU=Users,OU=MyBusiness,DC=site,DC=local</authUserDn> <authUserPassword>xxxx</authUserPassword> Also, in the end you supplied "sAMAccountName" for the username attribute, is that correct? That's exactly what for I introduced this "username" attribute in the first place. It allows you to pick some other property of the LDAP entry (associated with a user account) to be treated as the login principal. I'm glad it worked out well for you in the end!

Adam, since you have this list already sorted by Attachment (I'm assuming Descending sort), can't you simply find the first item with attachment and then: click on it to select it (it's going to be highlighted in blue) grab the scrolling knob of this panel's scrollbar and move it all the way to the bottom press SHIFT on the keyboard and then click on the last item in the table with your mouse That should effectively select all items from your previous selection (first email with attachment), leaving you with a selection matching all items with attachments. Then you simply right click and add a tag (in case you need this again).

Hi Mark! The difference can be explained by not accounting for items that are containing multiple keywords. When you make use of Keyword List facet to combine multiple queries into one, you are essentially querying the database for items that contain ANY of specified keywords. If you now tag items using auto-tag and then look into Tags facet or make use of Keyword statistics, you are analyzing hit counts for one keyword at a time. To show it to you on a concrete example: Items containing: only 'look': 5 only 'find': 4 both 'look' and 'find': 2 If you then auto-tag your set using KW list containing "look" and "find" keywords, then you'll see following results: tag 'look': 7 (5 + 2) tag 'find': 6 (4 + 2) And Features facet will show you 'Tagged' items: 11 (5 + 4 + 2)If you evaluate this keyword list search from Keyword List facet while having "Combine queries" option checked, then you'll see a cluster with 11 items (because this matches "look" OR "find"). Now, if you uncheck the "Combine queries" option or you switch to Keyword Statistics, then you'll notice the following counts: 'look': 7 (5 + 2) 'find': 6 (4 + 2) .. which of course is consistent with the item counts reported via auto-tagging.

Hi again, yes you are right - I checked this again and it seems that local audit log is only updated when working with Intella desktop. I'm afraid you'll have to wait until we offer extended features for our activities stream (again, it's one-two releases away).

I think I'll try to make this a high priority in one of our future releases (we are slowly wrapping 1.9.1 so a viable candidate would be 1.9.2). I'll write here as soon as we make this decision.

Hi! You won't be able to find this information in Connect UI, but you might have some success with reading the Audit Trail. Please check section 24 from our User Manual for Intella destkop. FYI, we are planning to capture more information from user activity and offer better support for exporting, filtering, reporting. One of the future versions of Connect should give you those more powerful features that would surely allow you to do what you need. It won't fit into the next release, but most likely will come in the following.

Hi Dominique! We decided to run several performance comparison tests to evaluate if this option can be enabled by default when you select "Recover deleted mail". That should make things easier.

Hi Dominique! Can you explain that on a more concrete example? When I first read this request I thought that you wan't to find items that don't have any date associated with them. However the example that you provided afterwards tells me that it would be enough to search for time period 01/01/2014 - 31/12/2014 and select "File created, Sent, File Last Modified" checkboxes. That essentially helps you to narrow your results to items from this period. Where am I reading this wrong?