AdamS Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Thanks Andrej, although I would respectuflly suggest that the ability to select multiple clusters should possibly be moved onto the high priority list, and in addition when selecting a 'ball' currently there is really no visual clue that the click has been detected. I think if it was made very obvious via highlighting or shading that the 'ball' had been selected this would greatly assist as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufelkinder Posted April 7, 2015 Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 Hierarchical tags sounds awesome! I can't wait to see this in action. Definitely a feature that my users have been requesting for a long time... Two more wish list items for you. 1) Custodians: The ability to organize data by definite Custodians would be really helpful in making data interchange in and out of Intella more consistent and universal across other products. To take it a step further, we recently ran into a major export where the client was requesting Custodian-level deduplication and this posed a challenge for us to accomplish efficiently in Intella. 2) Simple Text Analytics: I've been asking for this for ages, but I wish there was a Word Explorer that would allow you to view/filter/browse word associations much the same way that the social network tool works. I know that the word indexes are there "under the hood," but if we could access them through the UI I think this would make for really powerful "technology-assisted" review. For example, if you search for a keyword the Word Explorer could show you other words that are highly associated with your keyword, or which custodians use the keyword the most, etc. Link this up with a thesaurus and/or dictionary and you could include variants, synonyms, or alternative spellings of the keyword. 3) Two-factor authentication for Connect: since Intella almost by default is hosting extremely sensitive information, it would raise the level of security and increase awareness of the sensitivity of the data for my clients and users to have two-factor auth enabled. Plus, it's a great feature that almost no other platforms out there have in place at this point. Google Authenticator would be perfect for this. Thanks for all your continued good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 Two more wish list items for you. There's 3 wishes in your post With regards to your first point unless I'm misunderstanding what you want here you can already do this. The 'location' facet gives you the ability to search/include/exclude based on custodian already. For your major export with custodian level de-duplication you simply use the location facet, highlight the custodian(s) you are interested in, click search, then de-duplicate, highlight and export. Or have I missed your intention there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufelkinder Posted April 7, 2015 Report Share Posted April 7, 2015 Indeed, oops! So the problem with using Location as custodian is that there is no ability to edit sources/locations after they've been added or relate them to each other or organize them. For example: if I receive a hard drive image for a custodian, I can place it in a "custodian" folder and index it. Then, if I want to later add a new source of data, such as a server PST file, or a cell phone image or something, then if I add that to the custodian folder I need to re-index the whole case. If I add it as a separate source I can't associate it with the custodian folder. At least, unless I'm missing a new feature that lets you organize the Location facet, which would be awesome. Secondly, I had 22 custodians with this case and doing 22 separate exports would have been a bit of a pain and probably wouldn't have made the recipient of the productions too happy either.. But yes, that would have been a solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 You are right in that there is no way to organise custodian sources after they are added, however some sort of linkage would be a great idea. With your 22 cases though you don't have to do 22 different exports, you can do them all in one hit. Under the location facet you can highlight multiple locations by holding the 'cntrl' key as you select (same as windows explorer). Then once the 22 custodians are highlighted, click search then you are good to go. If you are worried about accidentally clicking somewhere and losing the search you can always save that search or just tag them all to create a 'export set', what ever works best for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufelkinder Posted April 8, 2015 Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 If I turn on deduplication and then search all locations as you described, won't it de-deuplicate across locations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2015 It will dedupe everything that is visible in the preview pane. I re-read your point above about 'custodian level dedupe' and I'm curious as to under what circumstances you might need that? Was your client requesting only some of the custodians be deduped and others left alone? If that was the case then you would only have to do two exports, one bulk lot for the deduped and one bulk lot for the not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufelkinder Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Maybe I'm not using the correct terminology. The client wanted each custodians dataset deduplicated against only that custodian's data. Let me try to describe what actually transpired: I did a single production of data from these custodians and provided it to the client. They came back to me and complained that the duplicate copies of attachments across custodians had not been produced. So, if Custodian James sent an attachment to Custodian Bill, I was producing two emails (one from James' mail and one from Bill's) but only one attachment -- even though the attachment was technically included in the email file -- because Intella was deduplicating the extra copies of the attachment. This was for a relativity load file so that wasn't working for them and I had to do an additional production of all of the duplicate copies of the emails. I'm not sure that this explanation is any clearer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 ahhh yes that's clear. I think one of the Intella guys may need to answer this because I'm not sure how Intella would deal with attachments within a data set. My normal process is to conduct my search, use the include filter to show only emails, then dedupe and export. If the emails themselves are hashing differently due to different content my understanding was that both copies of the email would be included with their relevant attachments, but from what you're saying this may not be what's happening in practice. Edit : although I do seem to recall reading somewhere that this behaviour may be different when we are talking about creating a load file as opposed to simply exporting data.. Edit again: For giggles I just conducted a quick test by finding two emails which are part of a chain both with the same attachment (hash matched), when exporting both these emails the attachments remained in tact for each email. It would appear it may be in issue with regards to creating the load files which I know are far more complicated than a normal export. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Hi guys! Walt, to address you last three questions: Custodians support That's of course on our radar for quite some time. I'm curious to learn though, what sort of integration would you exactly expect? With Hierarchical tags support (should be out in few days), you will be able to easily create a parent tag "Custodians" and create few child tags ("Bill", "James") that would represent each individual. If you add two PSTs from James to your case then you can use Location Facet and assign "Custodians/James" to each item in corresponding locations. To deduplicate this set it's enough to query for the particular tag and use decuplication in Items Table to have unique results. I can understand that doing that for 20 tags (representing 20 custodians) can be a bit laborous, but wouldn't that satisfy your use case? Rest assured that we have custodian-level deduplication on our radar too, so sooner or later it will be added to Intella. I'd love to hear more ideas how to integrate custodians into Intella. What sort of stats/reports/queries support would you need? Simple Text Analytics All good ideas, I must admit. I'd love to see at least some of those included in one of the future versions of Intella, but it's not an easy task to do properly. I'll see if we already have some plans about it. One thing that I find as particularly useful is the idea of "Concept Search", where predominant "concepts" (terms representing some abstract ideas) are computed for each item and represented in a graph that shows relationships between them. How would that sort of tool fit into your needs? Two-factor authentication Another nice idea, but using some third party authenticator (like in this case) would require for Connect server being open to public. Not something every company would agree to. However making it an option sounds like a good idea, so I'll put it on our roadmap. I wonder if anyone else would make use of such feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufelkinder Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Hi Łukasz, Custodians A couple useful functions that could be achieved from having this as a built-in object type would be managing Custodians as a datapoint/field when exporting/producing data (Not sure tags would help with this?), organization of evidence/data, and reporting and stats. On a recent case, we were asked to provide hit counts for a keyword set across custodians. In Relativity I was able to do this using the Pivot table function -- not a fan of Relativity, but it was nice to be able to get these kinds of stats within a single function. Or, how many hits per custodian have been reviewed and how many are remaining. A lot of times we just use the "has tags" criteria to determine if something's been reviewed, so if we are using tags for custodians then every document will be tagged by default. I think hierarchical tags will be just awesome, and it could definitely help with managing the data, but it seems like the Location facet can get really messy on large cases and it would be more natural to be able to logically organize the data there directly. You and Adam are correct, I think: doing 20 exports would have solved the problem in this case. I honestly didn't think of it until after I'd already produced and the client came back to me for the "missing" duplicate attachments. Text Analytics When I first saw Concept Search in Clearwell it definitely sounded interesting but some of my reviewers have reported that in real world use cases it can be a little "pie in the sky" when put to practical use. The text analytics I'm imagining of would be very concrete and transparent: show me the words most associated with this word. If you think there's value in this, I'll put some more thought into it and come back with better examples and details. Two-factor Authentication Sounds great -- definitely don't want to be the only person interested in it so I'm curious if you get any other response. We are transitioning many of our clients over to two-factor on other services like Google Apps and Box.com and it always shocks me when people don't ask for or seem to expect more security from their eDiscovery platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm curious as to how text analytics could work or be applied. For example if I search for 'pyramid' who or what decides what words are commonly associated with 'pyramid'? Egypt comes to mind and pharaoh, but what if I'm investigating a fraud matter and looking for information around pyramid schemes? While I like two factor auth as a general principal for my banking etc I'm not sure it's really needed for Connect. But if it is implemented at some point it would need to be an opt in rather than default setting I think as it's not something I'd be likely to use. Something I am coming up against on occasion now is clients IT departments being reluctant and in some cases refusing to open port 9999 on their firewall to allow connection to our server. Is it possible to have multiple ports incoming? One client in particular says they only have 4 ports open on the network. I suspect 80, 25, 110 and 22 or 8080 (or what ever their proxy uses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think that a complete solution should have a variety of a text analytic tools in it's toolbelt. Adam, for your example Concepts Search would be appopriate. You have a "Pyramid" concept which roughly splits into two smallers: "egypt" and "finance". This should be a part of unsupervised machine learning toolkit. Walt is also correct - if he looks for "fraud" he might also be interested in "embezzlement". And this is not something that can be easily inferred by machines themselves, therefore it feels more like a supervised learning (perhaps simple dictionary of synonyms would suffice, but machines can't create those themselves). This is a vast topic, but a very interesting one @Walt, having more examples or rough ideas will only make our job easier and increase the chance of having it delivered in Intella. So by all means please do share those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 @Adam, I'm not seeing a problem here. Why not simply change Connect's port to any other value like: 80, 8080 or 10123? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'm actually in the process of checking with my IT guys if any other traffic is already going out through port 80 that is unrelated to me on that IP address. It may be the best solution all round as port 80 is always allowed through corporate firewalls. Edit : my clever IT guys have set port 443 to route to my server from external connections so now my clients can use port 9999 or 443. Problem solved 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob.stanley Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 A feature that we would like would be the ability to generate keyword folders in a desired location that the associated hits would be copied into when exporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 @bob.stanley, is that something that is a common feature in other eDiscovery software? The reason I ask is because it immediatelly rises questions like: what to do with items that have multiple keywords? does it help to know that item had keyword "X" without knowing where exactly it is? Or perhaps that is just for the sake of reporting/migrating/pre-processing the data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 A feature that we would like would be the ability to generate keyword folders in a desired location that the associated hits would be copied into when exporting. I could see this being very handy as well. For me some of our clients will only request we do the bare minimum of scope reduction before handing the data to them for further searching, either to keep the billing hours to a minimum or because the data they are searching for is highly specialised in nature and I may not understand it if I see it. In cases like this they will give us a broad scope (date/keywords etc) then we export the data out. I generally manually create the keyword folders and export them out one at a time. The choice to include the same document/email in multiple folders due to multiple keyword hits is a case by case choice depending on my client and the amount of overall data. For small exports I'll generally include the duplicates, for the larger ones I may not. If we could have the option to auto create folders based on tags and export the relevant tags to these folders this would be a great time saver on the backend. If it's possible to have the option to not export the dupes OR export the dupes (tick box maybe), as Intella already has the hash values calculated this shouldn't be beyond possibility. Take that a step further regarding your comment of knowing where in the document the keyword or tag is, if we had the ability to export 2 versions of each document, say one PDF version with the keyword/tags highlighted yellow and then one other 'native' or non highlighted format (Word, PDF, .msg/eml). Which reminds me, where are you guys on having the ability to export emails as .msg? This is something I've been keen to see from the earliest versions as .eml has compatibility issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted April 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 A couple of cosmetic wishes that would be nice. 1- The ability to completely hide/close the pane with the coloured balls or boxes, thus using all screen real estate for the preview pane. 2- The ability to resize all panes the same way we can resize columns and rows in excel docs, mouse click and drag so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questa Integrity Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Not sure whether this was flagged before, but I recently noticed that when you print an email from a review window, information about email attachments is missing This problem seems to be both in Intella and Intella Connect. Is this a bigger technical problem or just an oversight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 A couple of cosmetic wishes that would be nice. 1- The ability to completely hide/close the pane with the coloured balls or boxes, thus using all screen real estate for the preview pane. 2- The ability to resize all panes the same way we can resize columns and rows in excel docs, mouse click and drag so to speak. We already have plans for that - it waits for a free time slot Not sure whether this was flagged before, but I recently noticed that when you print an email from a review window, information about email attachments is missing You can make use of "Print Report" feature to get the listing of attachments in your printout. Print Tab (in Desktop) and Print (in Connect) are just a way to get nicer printouts of what's currently being seen on screen (current tab). I could see this being very handy as well. (...) Ok, I'll talk this though with the team and if they agree I'll pull it onto the roadmap. Which reminds me, where are you guys on having the ability to export emails as .msg? This is something I've been keen to see from the earliest versions as .eml has compatibility issues. That's still on our radar, but not an easy task to implement right now. Interestingly, we are not receiving that many requests for that feature anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questa Integrity Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 As far as I understand the statistics (overview, histogram and email) relate to the whole case. It would be great to make it available also for a selected sets of data, eg. data from selected locations (mailboxes of selected custodians) or specific time periods. This would help in early case assessment. And another suggestion - to allow for deletion of a data source or alternatively allow for change of detailed index options ('Edit Sources'). The argument for this is that if you add new data and make mistake selecting detailed index option you cannot correct it once it's saved, even if data was not indexed. Moreover you cannot add another set of the same data with different index options to correct the mistake due to source data path collision. The only solution I developed for this, not very practical though, is to copy source data into a new folder (to change the path) and add that folder as additional data with correct index options. The data in the case get duplicated though, and you need to exclude them manually... Sometimes, if there's not too much data, it is better to setup a new case and delete the old one. [Edit:] sorry, this suggestions referred to Intella 100/250/Pro rather than to Intella Connect. Can you move it to where it's appropriate? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ŁukaszBachman Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Hi Questa! I'm happy to inform you that the next version of Intella (desktop line of products) will contain more advanced keywords statistics, so I'm hoping you will find there something for you too. At the moment we are not planning to make the input data configurable, but it's certainly a valuable addition and I think it will one day end up in Intella. We are focusing on keywords for now because that is something that has been asked for the most. As for your second question, all those needs (reindexing or deletion of a particular source) have already been recognized by us and we are finally at the stage where we can start making changes into the right direction. The first step that we took is to allow Intella to pick up new or modified sources from given folder and index just those. If everything goes as planned, then this will be available in 1.9 and more features will come soon afterwards. I think I'll leave this post here as it revolves around the topics that are already on our roadmap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted July 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 I have a client feature request They would like the ability to 'lock' a tag set so no more items can be added, no items can be removed, and the tag itself cannot be changed/deleted etc. The idea here being that at the end of the review the lawyers 'lock' the tagged data they will be relying on and then when the trial comes around they know that the data will be exactly as it was when they locked it. I'm thinking a good way to implement this (should you choose to) would be within the user permissions, we could create a special user account that has the ability to lock the tags (only lock) and then the only way they can be unlocked is by me (the host) by logging in via Intella rather than connect and then we could unlock if required. It would also be vital that this be fully transparent in the 'activity logs'. Also another request from the same lawyers, the ability to create a very basic user who can only see the 'search' tab when they log in and have some reduced functionality. The reason behind this is on occasion there may be orders to allow an opposing side to view the data. In these cases they don't want their own activity log to be visible and they may not even want the tags to be visible. This way we could have a reduced basic user log in to the same data set, not have access to the activity log, and not have the ability to see tag names. The assumption here is that there are items tagged as privileged which they want not only the content hidden from these users, but the very existence of the tag name as well. Perhaps the way to approach this would be to give greater customisation to us when we create the users so we can dictate what parts of the dashboard they see, can they export, can they tag etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpmills Posted July 10, 2015 Report Share Posted July 10, 2015 @Adam, I'm not seeing a problem here. Why not simply change Connect's port to any other value like: 80, 8080 or 10123? Where do you change that? I was trying to do something similar and have not been able to find the configuration files to edit the port… (Nevermind: found it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts