Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

503 profile views

todd.cooper's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Jon, is there a way to search or filter the data so that it returns only those files identified as the first instance of a file?
  2. Thanks for the response, Jon. It's great to hear that data overlay is coming! That feature alone would probably resolve 90% of the issues I've had with Intella. - Re: the ability to adjust Export Set configurations for subsequent exports: Example: Clients often produce documents to the requesting party on a rolling basis. When I'm creating those productions, I typically create an Export Set so that I can assign and track Production IDs for each document. But there's been a number of times where the documents produced in a later round need to be produced in a different format than those that were produced in the initial set--e.g., docs produced in Round 1 were produced as natives, without images, but there are docs in Round 3 that have redactions and need to be produced as images only. Since I can't change any of the Export Set settings, my only real option is to create a second Export Set and configure the document identifier to pick up where the original Export Set left off. This isn't a big deal when there are only a couple production rounds, but as the number increases things get cumbersome. To me, it would be best if I could have all of the productions under a single Export Set. That said, this issue will be pretty well taken care of once we can overlay data into custom columns. When that happens, I'll just assign the identifiers outside of Intella and overlay the values into a custom column (e.g., Prod ID). Then I can apply different export settings to different groups of documents as necessary.
  3. I'm not sure if this would be considered a bug, but it's a frustrating issue that's caught me twice . . . . I ran a search to identify 22 documents I planned to export. I opened a Review tab with the documents to give a quick, visual run-through. From within the Review tab, I sorted the documents into the desired order. Then, also from within the Review tab, I highlighted the docs and exported them by adding them to an existing Export Set. This Export Set exports the docs in original format and uses the current table sort order. But what happens is, Intella uses the sort order of the documents from the Search tab even though the Review tab was the 'active' tab on my screen. Of course, the docs were not in the desired order on the Search tab, which means the Export IDs are not in the desired order. And since the settings of an export set are locked in stone, there's very little I can do to correct these docs. I could delete the entire Export Set and start over, but there are over 6700 docs in the Export Set, so that would be a nightmare. Instead, I'll add these 22 docs to a new Export Set and will have to remember that the ID for those docs listed under the original Export Set column is incorrect. Here are some suggestions (wish list items!) that would help prevent this issue: - give users the ability to overlay data into custom columns post-indexing; - give us the ability to adjust Export Set configurations for subsequent exports; and - enable the option to use current table sort order for load file exports.
  4. I'm following up on this topic as I still don't see the ability to calculate "unique" hits. Is this feature still on the roadmap? As mentioned above, this is very useful in evaluating the effectiveness of a given search term. Generally, when we find a large number of documents are hitting on only one term in the list, we determine that particular term is not effective at returning potentially responsive documents. For what it's worth, I know that several other eDiscovery tools use the phrase "Unique Hits" in this situation.
  5. Thanks, Jason. I used AutoPortfolio years ago but had forgotten about it. Looks like that's the route I'm going to have to take. I'm comfortable creating custom load files, so I'm doing that as well (although that's not without its headaches!). Unfortunately, i can't go back to the producing party and demand more--the portfolios were produced by third parties to the government several years ago and now the government is producing them to us. Thanks again.
  6. I'm piggy-backing off gjennings post in the other forum titled Adding New Data Fields. I couldn't find an actual request for this feature in the Wishlist forum, so I'm adding it here just to make it official. This is hands-down the #1 item on my Intella Wishlist. I come across issues in nearly every case that could be resolved much more easily if we could import data into custom columns (rather than tags). Thanks.
  7. Hi Lukasz, Yes, I find that I'm changing tagging strategies often, especially when preparing to export documents to a review platform. For example, most of my clients prefer that I exclude those annoying .GIFs and .PNGs that are often attached to emails and are nothing more than a logo from a signature block. In that situation, I'll tag them and their duplicates with an "exclude" tag. On the other hand, clients also often ask that I pre-mark items as potentially privileged. In that case, I'll switch to tagging families. But even if I don't switch often, I still find myself checking the "Override" box just so I can see what the current settings are.
  8. Hi all, I received a production of emails produced as a PDF Portfolio. Best I can tell, Intella will not extract the individual PDFs and attachments from the Portfolio during indexing. Is that correct? If so, does anyone have a suggested workflow for dealing with PDF Portfolios? Thanks.
  9. When adding or removing tags, I think it would be helpful to have the tag preferences displayed by default when the window opens. That way we could have a visual reminder of what preferences are currently set, without having to click "Override tag preferences." That said, I think it would make sense to have the options greyed out and un-editable until the "override" box is checked.
  10. I'd like to see an easier and quicker way to select the fields to include in a load file. One thought is to have all of the Intella Columns listed in the field chooser window. Then we could edit the labels as needed and use the check boxes to decide which ones to include. This would be exponentially faster than than the current process: click "Add custom field" > type a name > type a label > change the type to Intella Column > scroll through columns > click Ok . . . then repeat again and again. It would also be nice if the columns in the field chooser window were sortable. At least Name and Label
  11. I'd like to second Adam's request for the ability to search email senders and receivers by Identity. I had a request today to find all emails between two people. Since each person may have multiple email addresses, it would be great if I could create Identities for them, then run a search that was essentially: (From:Identify-A AND To:Identity-B ) OR (From:Identity-B AND To:Identity-A)
  12. Hi all, I feel like I'm overlooking a simple solution to my issue and I'm hoping someone can point it out for me! After running a search for a particular term, I get results that are a mix of emails (which may or may not have attachments) and attachments (which may or may not be attached to an email that's included in the results). I then want to tag: a. the results; and b. all files that are in the same families as the results (i.e., all attachments to the emails in my results and all parent files to the attachments in my results and all other attachments to those parent files) Currently, I am: 1. Selecting all results and choosing "Show Top-level Parents" 2. Then clicking "Parents of X items" in the cluster map to get the parents to the items in my results and the items in my results that are already top-level parents; 3. Selecting all and choosing "Show Children" 4. Then selecting all of the clusters in the cluster map 5. Then tagging the resulting items Is this the best method? Thanks for your help.
  • Create New...