Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For almost as long as I?ve used email at work I?ve always used Outlook. Outlook directs you store your emails in a hierarchical folder structure which I find increasingly frustrating and I?m thinking about changing to using categories instead.

My problem with folders is that classic one: as soon as you subdivide stuff it?s not easy to bring common mails backs together in a single view. I?m going to use a poor record collection analogy. Say you file stuff by genre, then by decade, then by solo artist or group then it?s easy to find The Damned (Punk/70?s/Group) but not so easy to find Madonna (Pop/80?s/Solo, Pop/90?s/Solo, Pop/00?s/Solo etc).


I do have two concerns about using categories. Firstly I have a lot of folders, over 90, and therefore if I assume that my folder structure is valid then I?ll need the same number of categories. Secondly the process of assigning categories is cumbersome in Outlook, adding stuff to folders is far easier.


How do you file stuff so that you can find it easily in future ?


Please don?t suggest that I ditch Outlook that isn?t an option as it?s the company?s de-facto email client.

does it support tagging at all, then you can whack it with as much metadata as will help the search function rather than relying on physical location with a logical path.


Systems like sharepoint put a metadata layer over a physical structure to remove reliance on that.

Once you get your head around a differnt way of working then the implementation (if done right) of your file structure underneath ceases to matter really


I see multiple categories can be applied in outlook. there are also third party plugins for tagging, which you can ask your it bods about?

Why not talk to your IT department? They would be able to advise you rather than us guessing here as there may be specific settings in place in your office.


You could investigate using .pst or .ost files.


Some industries have compliance issues with storing emails, for example law firms or accountancy practices. They use specific Document Management Systems such as Autonomy FileSite or Hummingbird DM to store emails out of Outlook.


Whatever you choose, be aware that if you have more than 3000 emails in a single folder in Outlook (Outlook deems your inbox as a single folder, and particularly keep an eye on your Sent Items) then Outlook starts to slow down and degrade. That's why it takes ages to load in the morning.


I spend much of my work life showing professionals how to save emails into Document Management Systems folders and they are universally bad at so doing.

Actually I work in the IT department but not on the desktop side. The technology isn't the issue really it was more of a question as to how people file stuff and the pro's and con's of a folder based approach versus a tag/category/label approach.
I use categories and archive folders for each calendar year. It's far from ideal but it's just about good enough. I think this just isn't outlook's strong point compared to e.g. gmail. But like you I'm stuck with it because of company policy so I have to balance managing the emails on the one hand and my expectations on the other. :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...