Thank you, @BLUEFROG and @cgrunenberg for taking the time to reply. At first, I was slightly disappointed, and thought of leaving it there. However, since I think you built and are continuing to improve a really brilliant product, I thought it is worth responding once more.
@BLUEFROG, I perfectly understand the logic of using search operators when knowing what to look for.
For my use cases, there are situations where this is not ideal. For instance, if I stumble on a file somewhere in my archive, and want to understand where it came from, what’s its context. Ideally, I’d like to copy its filename (with the extension, since I want to be specific and don’t want to find other files that have the same name but not the same extension), search for it in DT, and understand how I used it in the past, who sent it to me, etc. The current working of DT makes it nearly impossible. If I paste the filename of an attachment into DT, it will not be found in the two places I’d expect it:
- As an individual item (if I have imported it separately). Because of the reasons mentioned above, and “everything” not really meaning everything.
- Inside the email, because names of attachments are not indexed.
That makes it hard if not close to impossible to get an overview of the context of the message.
It’s also confusing, since “everything” is supposed to look in all the fields, but apparently it doesn’t. Of course, you could rename “everything” to something closer to how it really works, but I believe it’s more intuitive to have it effectively look in all fields by default. That’s how most search functions work on the Mac and on the web.
A last suggestion, but very minor one: when searching for the filename with the correct options activated, the “search closeness” indicator should, if I understand it right, show a high degree of correlation if the filenames match exactly (which is the case in the screenshot below). Today, it shows a very low degree of correlation:
Thank you for making such a great tool, and all the best!
