Is there a way to see the entire hierarchy of folders for a message in
the Search Results window?

I just did a search of all mail folders (Outlook 2007). It returned
about 20 results. In the "In Folder" column, it only gives the name of
the folder the message is in, not the whole folder tree. I have a
somewhat complicated folder tree structure and I would prefer not to
have to open all of the branches looking for the correct subfolder. In
some cases, there may be more than one folder with the same name.

Not as far as I know. Search results return the item, not the tree.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
ALWAYS post your Outlook version.
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375


After furious head scratching, Prof Wonmug asked:

| Is there a way to see the entire hierarchy of folders for a message in
| the Search Results window?
|
| I just did a search of all mail folders (Outlook 2007). It returned
| about 20 results. In the "In Folder" column, it only gives the name of
| the folder the message is in, not the whole folder tree. I have a
| somewhat complicated folder tree structure and I would prefer not to
| have to open all of the branches looking for the correct subfolder. In
| some cases, there may be more than one folder with the same name.

On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:07:01 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
what@ever wrote:

Not as far as I know. Search results return the item, not the tree.

Only in Outlook. Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in
the drawer, provides the full path and right-clicking offers the
option of opening the containing folder.

Prof Wonmug wrote:

Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in the drawer, provides
the full path and right-clicking offers the option of opening the
containing folder.

Tis why you need to use *unique* names for "folders" in Outlook. Rather
than have:

Inbox
|___ Inbox


where the top folder is the default Inbox folder and the subfolder is, say,
where you hold e-mails for awhile, a search would just show "Inbox" for both
folders. So use something like:

Inbox
|___ Hold

There are no real folders in Outlook. That's why Windows Explorer operates
differently. The display of "folders" in Outlook is only for organizational
purposes: to show an arbitrary hierachy of records in the message store.
All items are stored in just one file (.pst). The database doesn't need
folders to track records. That structure is solely for the benefit of the
user to organize the records. There are no folders or files in Outlook's
message store, just records inside of one database file.

All POP and Exchange accounts get aggregated into one message store. Each
IMAP account gets its own message store. Each HTTP account gets its own
message store. Each message store gets its own tree "folder" hierarchy
shown in Outlook. So if you have multiple accounts that result in multiple
trees shown in Outlook, they will each have, say, an Inbox folder. Since
you don't (and can't) rename that delivery folder, but you still want to see
from which account a folder is associated, add the "E-mail Account" column
to the Advanced Find results. Alas, that customized view won't stick and
will be absent when you close that dialog window and later do another
Advanced Find.

On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:00:46 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Prof Wonmug wrote:

Even Windows Explorer, also not the sharpest tool in the drawer, provides
the full path and right-clicking offers the option of opening the
containing folder.

Tis why you need to use *unique* names for "folders" in Outlook. Rather
than have:

Inbox
|___ Inbox


I need to use unique names because Outlook is even stoopider than Win
explorer?

In any case, unique folders won't solve the problem, as I said in my
post. I have probably 50-60 "folders" in all, maybe more. I can't
remember each name or which leg of the tree they are in. I also move
them around from time to time.

where the top folder is the default Inbox folder and the subfolder is, say,
where you hold e-mails for awhile, a search would just show "Inbox" for both
folders. So use something like:

Inbox
|___ Hold

There are no real folders in Outlook. That's why Windows Explorer operates
differently. The display of "folders" in Outlook is only for organizational
purposes: to show an arbitrary hierachy of records in the message store.
All items are stored in just one file (.pst). The database doesn't need
folders to track records. That structure is solely for the benefit of the
user to organize the records. There are no folders or files in Outlook's
message store, just records inside of one database file.

All POP and Exchange accounts get aggregated into one message store. Each
IMAP account gets its own message store. Each HTTP account gets its own
message store. Each message store gets its own tree "folder" hierarchy
shown in Outlook. So if you have multiple accounts that result in multiple
trees shown in Outlook, they will each have, say, an Inbox folder. Since
you don't (and can't) rename that delivery folder, but you still want to see
from which account a folder is associated, add the "E-mail Account" column
to the Advanced Find results. Alas, that customized view won't stick and
will be absent when you close that dialog window and later do another
Advanced Find.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.

This is a design defect -- just one of many.

"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.

This is a design defect -- just one of many.

The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
in Windows explorer.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
in Windows explorer.

Two points about this: 1) even if they are just "labels", as you call them,
they should still be searchable. If you can display them in the Nav Pane, you
should be able to display them in a search window. 2) File names and folder
names on disk are also just "labels". Files are laid out physically anywhere
on a disk. Nothing in a "folder" is colocated, except by chance or planning.
Structures in the metadata on the disk make the files appear to be in folders,
but they're just pointers to logical locations and then those logical
locations map to the physical locations, which can be anywhere. Windows file
system structures and Outlook folder structures are equally "real" or "fake",
depending on your point of view.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:20:43 +0100, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
.. .
This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.

This is a design defect -- just one of many.

The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
in Windows explorer.

Please reread the statement you quoted.

The internal structure is irrelevant. It is displayed on the screen as
a tree structure so it should be treated as a tree structure.

On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:38:18 -0400, "Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]"
wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
in Windows explorer.

Two points about this: 1) even if they are just "labels", as you call them,
they should still be searchable. If you can display them in the Nav Pane, you
should be able to display them in a search window. 2) File names and folder
names on disk are also just "labels". Files are laid out physically anywhere
on a disk. Nothing in a "folder" is colocated, except by chance or planning.
Structures in the metadata on the disk make the files appear to be in folders,
but they're just pointers to logical locations and then those logical
locations map to the physical locations, which can be anywhere. Windows file
system structures and Outlook folder structures are equally "real" or "fake",
depending on your point of view.

Exactly. Well said.

Sigh - it is not a folder structure, it is a database. That is why the
storage file is called a Personal Storage TABLE (.pst) - as in an Access
database table or SQL database table.

You are welcome to make any type of assumption about how Outlook works or
should work, but only the definition of the designers will apply.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
ALWAYS post your Outlook version.
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375


After furious head scratching, Prof Wonmug asked:

| On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:20:43 +0100, "Gordon"
| wrote:
|
||
|| "Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
|| ...
||| This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
||| structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look
||| like a tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.
|||
||| This is a design defect -- just one of many.
||
|| The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with
|| labels (AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE
|| file. The "folder" names are just pointers or labels...they don't
|| physically exist like folders in Windows explorer.
|
| Please reread the statement you quoted.
|
| The internal structure is irrelevant. It is displayed on the screen as
| a tree structure so it should be treated as a tree structure.