Jump to content

Wish list/suggestions V2


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I would like to add to the wish list, if it's not already here, the ability to add back ino the case file items that could not be decrypted, that I then subsequently export and password crack externally.  So much like the OCR mechanism already built into Intella, it would be useful if there was a similar mechanism that allowed me to export items that could not be decrypted, password crack in an external tool, and then allow me to re-import those items back into their repsective families, or atleast someone way to link them back to their respective parent families.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I second Jasons request for the ability to expand the search parameters, I really like the idea, but I would point out that the 'only' option would still be required when selecting the 'from', 'cc' or

While I'm here, I had a thought last night which may help everyone with regards to our wishlist/requests etc.   This is more of a functional request for the forums here to assist the Intella people

A long standing wish (and to be honest the only thing that irks me about this great tool), the ability to add multiple source items when setting up the case.   Adding 10 source items from different

Posted Images

Hello Mark,

 

That idea is already on our radar - though I cannot predict yet when it will be added. It indeed is very similar to the OCR import: new binaries are imported for conceptually the same item and need further processing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the feedback. It would indeed be a deliberate user action, not something that is triggered merely by row selection in the table, due to the database work involved. A hidden export would not be needed, but all sizes need to be read from disk, which can take a considerable amount of time for a large set of items.

 

Hi Christiaan, wouldn't the size of all the documents already be known due to the indexing process? I wouldn't have thought anything would need to be calculated here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are determined during indexing and stored in the database, but the sizes of the selected items still have to be fetched from that database and summed up. That requires some disk I/O that you don't want to do automatically if the user selects thousands of rows or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

As you can see in another sticky thread, I have just put Intella 1.8.2 online. This release has a number of features that I know people in this thread and on this forum have asked for:

  • See the number of selected items in the Table, List and Thumbnails views (no cumulative data size yet though).
  • "Check / uncheck all" button in the Add Tags and Remove Tags dialogs.
  • Auto-complete in the Add Tags dialog: type in part of the name of the tag and the list of existing tags gets filtered to those that start with the entered text.
  • When a keyword list contains an invalid query, report the problematic line(s).

More tagging enhancements are being worked on (we're looking into hierarchical tags, custodian-related functionality, etc.) but they were not ready for prime time yet. If you have some ideas for tagging improvements, now is the time to share them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I have a feature request that has to do with Intella's export functionality.  Being in the legal field, we use Intella for document productions, which can be very large, and are often addressed in successive waves (aka rolling productions).  Although the arrival of the Export ID field was a welcome addition, it doesn't fully address our needs.  In litigation, the production phase is typically followed by depositions and subsequent court filings, all of which require the inclusion of the production, Bates-numbered version of the documents.  Despite the ESI world, that becomes the bottom line "evidence" in the litigation.  

 

So, when we use the Load File export option (even though we may only be producing searchable PDFs, that's the only way to achieve page-level numbering during export), although it's great that a starting Bates number is recorded as the Export ID, when it comes time to take the next steps, end users are not able to quickly retrieve and print document via bates number UNLESS I re-load the production documents back into the database.  Although that's doable, either as PDFs or with greater complexity via a load file, it's unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming.  In addition, the best practice espoused has always been to keep indexing to a minimum to avoid potential database corruption (which has never been a significant problem for me with Intella).  Still, when necessary, if I have a 250 GB database with 100 tags, and I'm adding a few hundred documents, I always gulp before commencing the process - even with a backup in place.  I often don't have the cushion of time to deal with something going wrong, and a snapshot from 24 hours earlier could be missing a LOT!    

 

That being the case, I would love to see Intella (and specifically Connect!) expand upon the Export ID feature to include automatic linking to production images of documents in the output location.  It would be great for it to accommodate multiple such images per database item, as it's not uncommon for one database to be used in support of separate, but related cases, all of which would have their own, uniquely-numbered production document sets.

 

As it stands now, although it's fantastic to be able to search by Export ID (essentially beginning Bates number unless the production is 100% single-page images) in desktop, it would be great if that feature could be duplicated in Connect.  Even better would be hyperlinking to the production document "images" (regardless of type), such that legal personnel could work by Bates number, as the legal world is accustomed.  My users understand the Item ID and a unique database identifier in general, but there comes a point where paper documents have to be compiled to prepare a witness for a deposition, and for better or worse, those will be printed for inclusion in a 3-ring binder, of which multiple copies will usually be made, with documents entered into the record evidence.

 

As it stands now, without giving end users access to the back end data locations, I would need to create a spreadsheet that cross references Item ID and Export ID, with hyperlinks to the production images to permit easy access and printing.  When you have multiple productions, you have to do multiple CSV exports to capture all of the different Export IDs, as only the one currently displaying will export.  Then you have to combine all the CSVs into a single spreadsheet to enable user access.  

 

Anyway, I wanted to put that out there in the event others thought it would be a beneficial feature.  This would create a link between the underlying native file, Intella's contents view, preview, redaction view (if applicable) and production image (presumably under a new tab).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a feature request from a fairly savvy attorney reviewer that I thought was very interesting so I wanted to share.  With the current tagging functionality, if you have to go into the Add or Remove Tags dialogue to select a tag(s) to apply to an item, the suggestion was made that an additional text box be included that would populate the Comments field when applied.  The rationale was that, at the moment you've made the tagging decision, you would be most in tune with any extraneous comments that should be included that couldn't be efficiently reflected in a tag.  I know it's just a click away to get there after applying the tag(s), but from the focused perspective of a reviewer, the efficiency increase when you add 500 such comments over the course of 3K or more documents in a review session would be significant.  

 

As a practical matter, were that feature to be added, I would hope that administrators might be able to leverage its use vs. the over-creation of super-specific tags that I know has been a problem for me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

One suggestion for a future feature that might be worth adding is a folder hash, for when folders are present in email mailboxes, and those folders contain several emails, and you want to deduplicate these folders when facing multiple monthly backup copies of the same mailboxes, or a users mailboxes from different locations, i.e a mailbox on the server and a local copy as well.

 

The reason for this suggestion is based on a current project I'm working on.  We have mulitple mail boxes from monthly backups.  Naturally, we need to capture new emails, and deleted emails, so we process all the mailboxes.

 

We find though that in Jan's backup you have a folder XYZ which contains 25 emails and their attachments.  Of course, in Feb's backup you have the same folder with the same 25 emails; or do you?

 

It seems that one of our keywords hits on the XYZ folder name, as well as maybe 1 or two emails in this folder.  So in our review population, we have the same folder appearing 12 times, the emails appearing several times etc. And of course what has happened is that reviwer A is assigned 1 or two copies of the same folder, reviewer B gets assigned 1 or 2 copies of the same folder, and so on.

 

At the moment there is no way to say for sure if folder XYZ is the same in each monthly backup.  A user could delete an email or save new emails in the folder each month.

 

Having a folder hash (maybe you can take the message hashs from the emails and MD5 hashs from attachments in a folder to use in generating a folder hash), would help in deduplicating folders containing emails.

 

Perhaps this could be useful as well when dealing with monthly backups of netshares. 

 

If you can say for sure that this folder is the same as that folder, you could include the Jan backup in your review, and tag Feb-Dec as dups, if those folders haven't changed over time of course.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mark,

 

Very interesting idea!

 

The current deduplication should take out the duplicates of the individual mails, but it's unpredictable which occurrences of those mails are selected. That can indeed be improved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi (please forgive me if this is already on the list - although if it is I've not seen it)

 

   I would like an automated report that I c  an use to accompany the files I send to our legal advisors documenting what I did to the source data and how I created the final deliverable data.           

I am increasingly being asked to produce an audit trail or log of what I have done with (usually) mail data.   Along the lines of, "On date/time I (Richard W) indexed 20 PST files (abc.pst, def.pst, etc...), containing 20,000 mails.  I filtered on any of the keywords ghi, jkl, mno, pqr.  Then there were 12,000 mails.  I then deduped the data and there were 4,000 mails which I exported to a production PST.  There were 50 mails which failed to export first time, but worked second time." 

 

It doesn't need to be in narrative form it could be a simple list:

 

date/time: Name of Case = Project Aardvark

date/time: Case technician = Richard W

date/time: Number of PST files in = 20 (abc.pst, def.pst, etc...)

date/time: Number of mails indexed = 20,000

date/time: Number of keywords = 4 (ghi, jkl, mno, pqr)

date/time: Boolean logic = OR

date/time: Number of mails = 12,000

date/time: Number of near duplicates = 8,000

date/time: Number of mails exported = 3,950 out of 4,000

date/time: Number of mails retried = 50 out of 50

 

I currently do this as a manual process however I believe that all this information is already available although it is scattered within several different files in the case logs folder, case audit folder and wherever Intella Case Manager stores it data. 

 

 

With many thanks

Richard W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Richard!

Could you explain what kind of data are you exactly missing in the currently available information? I think you could find all the necessary info in the following files:

  • audits/local-user.csv - detailed information about user's action and when the indexing occurred
  • indexing-***.csv - details about indexing status
  • main-*.log - indexing summary

I know that this data is a bit spread around, but it should have everything for you to do the job. In future we want to build more advanced auditing tool (with search, filters and reporting), but no concrete dates yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

We would like to search for message text that holds currency symbols and currency words.

 

This feature will be very usefull because one can find on an easy way all messages that are money related.

 

Examples:   

EUR

USD

AUD

GPB  

$

£

 

Searching for the text is not the problem, but searching for symbols is not possible.

This would have impact for indexing, but maybe it is an idea to let the user define what symbols he wants to be indexed in a particular case?  (like the possibiities within FTK)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Hans,

 

it is already possible to search for currency symbols together with the preceding or following number. For example, you can search for 1€. Alternatively, you could use a wildcard to get for all occurrences of symbol € by searching for *€. For numbers following the symbol, for example $1000, you can seach either by $1000 or $*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Hans,

 

it is already possible to search for currency symbols together with the preceding or following number. For example, you can search for 1€. Alternatively, you could use a wildcard to get for all occurrences of symbol € by searching for *€. For numbers following the symbol, for example $1000, you can seach either by $1000 or $*

 

Hello Andrej,

 

Searching for just the symbol is not possible as far as I know.  In our language it is mormal that you put a space between te currency symbol and the amount. That makes it hard to find.

 

Kind regards,

Hans

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

One of the biggest weaknesses of Intella IMHO, is the fact that Intella cannot count the number of actual search hits and only counts the number of items that return search hits (e.g., if one document contains one or more search hits, it's only listed as one item in the hit count window. Furthermore, in order to review the individual hits, each document has to be opened, so that the search hits can only be reviewed one at a time and one document at a time. A table view  that lists all the hits would be a lot easier to work with. 

 

If you're familiar with X-Ways you know what I mean. All search hits can be listed individually (one hit per row, irrespective how many hits in the same file); the user than has the option of listing one hit per file if desired. 

 

But more importantly, X-Ways adds a column that allows us to view the hits in context (e.g., surrounded by a number of bytes before and after the hit--they number of bytes preceding and following the hit can be readily adjusted). And nice, crisp HTML reports can be generated that not only show the hit in context showing X-number of characters before and after the hit, but can be customized to show all kind of data about the file, including any internal file metadata found in MS Office files, etc. I was going to attach a sample report, but I don't see a way to attach a file to this post; I'd be glad to provide some samples as I'm not sure if I'm explaining it adequately in this post. 

 

Furthermore, I know I can generate reports in Intella but the output fields are rather limited. One blaring omission is a field that lists the search keywords that returned search hits in a particular file. (I know how to generate the Hit Count reports, but these don't tell me what search keywords can be found in a particular file.)

 

So here's a short synopsis of what I would like to see in Intella:

1. A table that lists each search hit per row (this table would provide a switch that would allow switching to one row per file as in the current table listing)

2. A column in the table that lists each search hit that's preceded and followed by a number of characters (the number of characters should be adjustable). This column should be exportable to CSV, HTML, etc. 

3. More comprehensive options for generating reports, such as including all available internal file metadata in MS Office files, PDFs, JPGs, etc. 

4. A column that lists the keywords that return hits per file or per hit. 

5. The ability to generate columnar reports in HTML format (in addition to the HTML reports that are currently available)

 

I'd be glad to discuss some of these enhancement requests in more detail and provide samples. 

 

Please let me know. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Phil,

 

Thank you for this detailed and thorough description. I have been playing for some ideas on keyword search statistics for some time now and your list lets me refine and generalize that.

 

I would love to see some samples! When you type a reply, there is a "More Reply Options" that takes you to a more advanced editor that allows for attaching files beneath the reply text. Do you see these buttons? If not, I will take this up with the admins, perhaps it's a message board configuration issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I would like to submit a request for modificaiton where export to concordance load file legal industry standard practice is concerned:  

 

It is common practice in legal document productions to exclude certain files from an imaging production to TIFF format, most commonly XML and Spreadsheet files, because the rendering of these files can produce literally thousands of unreadable pages.    Intella gracefully handles the suppression of these files during production, and even permits the printing of a “placeholder” page with customizable text via the “Skip Original View” setting .  HOWEVER Intella falls short of legal industry standard practice of being able to produce NATIVES where Original View has been skipped WITH THE SAME BATES (page) NUMBER AS THE PLACEHOLDER PAGE IN THE SAME PRODUCTION RUN.    I have tried to do this with export groups but it doesn’t work because you have to use the same settings (e.g. can’t do one run with natives and one without). 

 

Note that exporting all natives and then just deleting them from the production is NOT acceptable because then there are records in the load file referencing the now missing natives and that’s not OK. 

 

Please could you add two checkboxes to the program’s Image Rendering Options dialog under “Skip Original View For” section? 

 

1) Produce Native  - this setting will be tied to a sub-routine that exports the native file with the SAME PAGE NUBER as the “placeholder” page.

 

2) Skip OCR – this setting will create a .TXT file with the contents of the Placeholder Text  field, and apply the same bates/page number to the text file as the placeholder image file.  Sample language:  “Withheld as Privileged.”

 

THANK YOU!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I would love to see some samples! When you type a reply, there is a "More Reply Options" that takes you to a more advanced editor that allows for attaching files beneath the reply text. Do you see these buttons? If not, I will take this up with the admins, perhaps it's a message board configuration issue...

 

 

Christiaan

 

Sorry, I just saw this. I thought I had enabled the "follow the topic" option but apparently I had not, so I did not receive any notifications. 

 

I will generate a sample report using X-Ways and send you a copy. This should give you a better idea of what I was describing.  I can't do this right now, but I should be able to get it done in a day or so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

post-425-0-71501000-1430346850_thumb.pngChristiaan

 

I'm attaching a screen clipping that shows the search view from X-Ways displaying certain columns. Obviously, more columns can be added or removed at the user's discretion. 

 

One of the biggest problems I have with Intella is that it provides no hit counts. The only counts we get and can report on are item counts. This is not very useful in identifying keywords that generate false positive hits. And in some instances, clients want to see the actual hit count, not just the document count per keyword. 

 

Furthermore, when using multiple keywords, the only way to get an idea of what keywords return hits in a particular document is to open the document in the viewer and look at the search hits. You get no reports that can be generated in a table format that provide feedback by document indicating which keywords were found in the document. The ability to report the terms that return search hits for each document in a table report is sorely lacking. I realize that the hits are highlighted inside the viewer, but we have to report hit counts to the attorneys and they don't have access to the viewer--also the viewer is limited at examining one document at a time, which is not very helpful when dealing with a large data set. 

 

I think the attached screen clipping should give you some ideas of what I'm trying to describe. Please review and let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide some additional feedback. 

 

Thanks.

 

Best regards, Phil 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christiaan:

 

One other thought I should have included in my previous message. I realize that the table view depicts the documents. I was wandering whether another view could be added that would depict the hit counts. In other words, if a particular document contained multiple keywords, each search hit would be listed in a separate row, so that the same document would generate multiple rows, one for each search hit. The table views (e.g., document or hit view) would be user selectable, so a user could switch back and forth from a listing of documents to a listing of search hits.

 

Adding this functionality would greatly enhance Intella's robust search capabilities. 

 

Best regards, Phil 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Phil,

 

Thank you for the sample and additional info, I now fully see what you mean. We are forming plans for showing elaborate keyword statistics. so this is perfect input. At the moment I am not able yet when and how we will implement this, but please know that we do see the value of the improvements that you suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

When viewing information in the Details pane currently any information that extends outside of the current column size is hidden from view until the column is expanded manually.

 

It would be great if we could have some small control over that, for example in some cases it's easier to view/navigate when the column extends by row size rather than column width. Let's say I have the tags column exposed and due to grouping or what ever reason each item has multiple tags, say 10. currently to view all the tags we have to make the column very wide, this appears a bit messy when trying to quickly ascertain the tags applied.

 

If we had the option to display the tags column with one tag per line, and have the row increase in height accordingly (much like text wrap behaves in Excel) this would be much easier on the eye when dealing with items with multiple tags. A view option to change this behaviour as required was what I had in mind.

 

Also on tag behaviour the ability to pre-define tags would be fantastic. I'm thinking specifically where we want to take advantage of the new parent/child tag ability.

 

Let's say I have 10,000 documents from 10 different vendors, and further I also know that these documents will be broken up into the following types:

  1. Emails
  2. Financial Documents
  3. Memos
  4. Invoices
  5. Receipts
  6. Payments

If we could create the 10 parent tags and those 6 other tags from the outset then alter the tagging behaviour slightly, so we are previewing a document and we click 'tag' then the dialog box could open with the parent tags and child tags already visible, we simply check the box next to the parent tag we want and the same next to the child tag and it's done. Fast and simple and means we don't have to retype the child tags each time we are working within a new parent tag set. Also even when working with the documents if we decide to create a new child tag 'Report' there could be a simple option to tell Intella if we want this new tag under the parent or child section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to revisit this wish until I wear you guys down  :P

 

Please tell me if it's not possible so I can leave you alone, but I really can't stress how many of my clients ask for it and just how useful it would be.

 

The timeline preview pane is fantastic, one of the most visually useful tools for quickly and easily seeing who's emailing who, however the current export to png functionality is really only useful for a handful of emails, say up to 20, before the size of the picture becomes too wide to be of any use.

 

Is it possible to have the functionality to export the timeline to an interactive webpage?

 

What would be perfect would be something that visually looks identical to the timeline preview in Intella (very clean and easy to read) that also incorporates the live links to the individual emails just as we can do from within Intella. I'd go a step further and say if it's possible to retain the other functions as well (scroll bar to increase/decrease timeline size, options and legend).

 

Maybe this is not possible in HTML but would be possible in Java or some other clever platform....but I just can't stress enough how much I want this functionality  :P

 

Then of course the logical extension is the include timeline capability for other file types as well. As you can guess I'm messing with timelines at the moment and really not seeing a whole lot out there that does them in a way that impresses me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Adam,

 

when reading the words "timeline to an interactive webpage", I immediately thought of having Timeline view in Connect. This would satisfy the requirement of having it available as "webpage" and there could also be live links to items, which would enable the users to see more information in the previewer part of Connect. Is this what you are looking for?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...