On 10/13/01 6:32 PM, "Dan Frakes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, some background. I have an entry for a gym I go to: USF Koret > Center. The entry has "USF Koret Center" in the Company field (no name). > > I often forget whether the name is in "name" or "company." So to find it, I > end up typing "Koret" into the quickfind field. I always do "name contains" > first, then remember it's in company, then find it that way. If you do this frequently, why not give all the contacts with only company the same NAME? Then you'll only have to look under Name, without having to remember how you listed it. You can reserve searches by Company for those cases where you have 25 people all working at the same company but whose contacts ach have their own name. Contacts with only company really could be identified with the same company name as Name. > > Request #1: an "any field" or "name or company" contains option in the > quickfind. "Any Field" would NOT be a quickFind: it would very, very, very slow. "Name or company" might be a good idea to save you from the workaround above. > > > Second thing: if I'm trying to find that contact using "Find" (command-F), > doing a Find for "Koret" in all contacts, with "Search subjects, titles, and > names only" doesn't find it. Why not? "subjects, titles and names" only looks at subjects (of Messages and Events), titles (of Notes), and names (of Contacts and Tasks). It's not very well explained: basically it just looks at the names of things (faster). > > > Third: If I do a "More options" find, if I don't remember whether a contact > was listed in name or company, to find it I have to do "name contains or > company contains; match if any criteria are met" search. Much easier would > be a "any field" option, so I could do "any field contains koret" > It's pretty easy to do ["Name contains" Or "Company contains"] and MUCH, MUCH faster. Do you have any idea how many fields there are in contacts, including all the custom fields and phone numbers? About 59, the last time I looked. It doesn't matter if they're empty - Entourage would still have to look in all of them. 59 fields instead of 2 fields: 30 times as long. If you have 2000 contacts, that would take a VERY long time. If it takes 20 seconds now, it would take 300 seconds - 10 minutes then. Why would you want this? I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an "all fields" criterion; perhaps there should. But I'd never use it. the extra 5 seconds to add a second criterion for company more than pays off for the extra 2-5 minutes it might take to search all fields. -- Paul Berkowitz -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To search the archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
