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.

Prof Wonmug wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

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.

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.

And I can stack books in some order, too, but doesn't change that they are
still books despite how I stack them. The database is comprised of records
wherein each has fields some of which are used for keywords, like a "folder"
attribute. I don't know how Microsoft chains the pointers in these fields
to provide for an arbitrary and superficial hierachical to present an
organizational view to users. That Microsoft hasn't improved the search
tool inside of Outlook represents the effect of 2 events: no corporate
customer (i.e., the *real* customer base that can influence what Microosft
does with their code, not consumers like you and me) has requested
significant improvement in this function, and Microsoft already came out
with a better search tool that works not only in Outlook but with lots of
apps and files.

Software always has a fixed number of bytes so obviously only so many
functions can be coded into a program. That someone didn't consider your
personal wants is not a design defect. It is a shortcoming for YOU and a
populace of users of like mind but who are obviously not robust enough in
number to have insignificant effect on Microsoft to contemplate sustained
revenue by complying with this customer demand. The community that wants
the change is to puny for consideration by the software owner. You might
want it. That doesn't mean they have to add it, especially if it is not
expected to effect revenue.

The Advanced Find has never been "advanced". For the most part, it is a
simple search tool albeit you could enter some SQL-like search criteria (I
never bothered to learn the syntax) if you want more than the default search
input controls permit. I see no means to alter the form used to display
that dialog (versus changing the form used to view, say, the new-mail editor
window to add or remove fields).

If you want a better search in Outlook then why aren't you looking at
Windows [Desktop] Search, Google Desktop, Copernic, or another file indexing
and content cataloging utility? You could see if one of those gives you the
search results you want. Also, since Outlook was made extensible through
macros and add-ons, there is also the possibility that someone already coded
something up to improve on searching in Outlook. The folks over at
outlookcode.com might have some info or some code already written up for
download or mentioned in a forum post, or you could code it up yourself or
pay for someone to do it or you (or pay for an add-on that someone already
wrote up). Because Outlook is extensible, it could do just what you want.