Indexed files and moving location

I have been indexing the files rather than importing. Yes, I know the default and suggested is to import. My reasoning for indexing is this: I want to be able to alter a file via preview (which has an ease of highlighting in different colors that I can’t seem to find in DT3), or change the file name and see the alterations in devonthink and vice versa. However, as others have noted, I occasionally want to reorganize the folder structure via finder but then DT3 can’t find the file. Surely there is a way for DT3 to track when a file is bing moved in finder and then point to its new location. Am I missing something.

Second part of the issue - I am also concerned with the amount of space an imported file would have. Wouldn’t this mean that every file on my computer that is imported into DT3 has a duplicate? That seems like a lot of hard drive space.

Final question. When I index a .jpg file into DT3 and the convert it to searchable .pdf it is making a copy right? I mean I would actually prefer if it replaced the jpeg with a pdf, but I don’t think it will do that. (If anybody has a better way of getting a newspaper . com article to searchable pdf, I am all ears. I just can’t seem to do it. The pdf version downloaded from newspapers . com seems such lower quality. But this is probably a concern for another thread.

I have no problem using external editors for my imported files
I can double click a file; or right click and select Open With

1 Like

Not if you import into DT and than remove in Finder. Why would you want to have the same file twice in different locations?

Welcome @JMC2

My reasoning for indexing is this: I want to be able to alter a file via preview (which has an ease of highlighting in different colors that I can’t seem to find in DT3), or change the file name and see the alterations in devonthink and vice versa.

You can easily rename a document’s name in DEVONthink. You can also open the document in an external editor, e.g., Preview. Neither are a reason to index your files.

Surely there is a way for DT3 to track when a file is bing moved in finder and then point to its new location. Am I missing something.

No, DEVONthink isn’t going to track an indexed file as it moves to arbitrary places on your computer. If the indexed file was moved between indexed locations, DEVONthink would get a notification of that. But if you moved the file to a non-indexed location, it will be missing to DEVONthink. And no, you shouldn’t just index your home directory so you can move things wherever yiou want.

Second part of the issue - I am also concerned with the amount of space an imported file would have. Wouldn’t this mean that every file on my computer that is imported into DT3 has a duplicate? That seems like a lot of hard drive space.

When importing files, you don’t need to keep the copy outside the database.

When I index a .jpg file into DT3 and the convert it to searchable .pdf it is making a copy right? I mean I would actually prefer if it replaced the jpeg with a pdf, but I don’t think it will do that.

That is technically illogical as a JPEG is not a PDF so obviously there will be a new file generated. However, if Settings > OCR > Original Document > Move to Trash is enabled, the JPEG would be put in the Trash of the database.

1 Like

Yes, when you import, you create a copy of the file from the Finder into the DT database. Yes, you effectively need twice as much storage space. I would reserve the word “duplicate” to the DT lexicon, where it means a range of things beyond just “a physical/electronic copy of” the source.

The “not if …” opening says the same thing as above.

Why have the same file twice? One reason is the convenience of not having to open DT to open a file in its source application. Another is the preference to use the Finder as a primary organizer of content while using DT as a primary processor of content … i.e. DT is not a Finder replacement + more tools.


JJW

And than modifying the file in is source application… Which would require to re-import it into DT if you want to have the same data there. All that is possible.

But it’s not a good idea, imo. And DT is always as open as the Finder here, so I don’t see any inconvenience. Ymmv, of course.

Ultimately, we are both agreeing on the caveats that are faced when importing versus indexing.


JJW

1 Like

I just know that when I do a spotlight search for something or do it in a finder window, I can get a “quicklook” at the file when it is housed in my file structure. When it is in DT3, I get the only the DT3 logo and the file name, no “quicklook.” I do understand that if I were doing everything in DT3 all the time, I would be able to do searches and quickly see things. In some ways it’s just a struggle to get out of the database everything I think it can do, but in a way that I can understand.

If you can use the Finder, you can use DEVONthink. And while it’s not meant as a Finder replacement (as the Finder is meant for more general file management ), handling a file in the Finder is not much different than handling it in DEVONthink.

I suggest if you post separately about the “obstacles” you face with DT3 then you will get lots of helpful advice and will be surprised how easily your goals will be met.

I see far more downsides to indexing than you realize and many more upsides to importing that you will discover.

2 Likes

If you know the file is there in an indexed folder, select the folder as a group in DT and choose File => Update Indexed Items. There’s also a very useful script available from the scripts menu as Data => Update indexed items of all databases. It operates on all open databases, so you can speed it up a bit by closing any you don’t need updating, though it’s impressively quick anyway.

1 Like

I agree it isn’t intended to be, but for what it’s worth, I actually do use it like that for maybe 80-90% of my files. All my research is stored in DT, so there is no reason for me to use Finder except for the few things that are not in a database.

That also means I don’t use Mac-wide searches to find files (I have Alfred, but Spotlight would apply here too, as would Raycast etc). All my files are in DT, so I just use DT’s search function, DT basically is the interface between my files. Which for me is as it should be, because I want far more granular control over my searches, the level of detail I see, etc. than Finder would provide by itself.

3 Likes

Where I think I am struggling might be terminology and “look and feel.” I don’t think I understand why there are different databases. When would one want to do a search in only one database and ignore all the others? Is a database like a parent directory (and if so, I still don’t understand when one would want to search one database but not globally search like I World in a finder/spotlight search)? Are groups basically “folders” within the database? And why is it called inbox? And why am creating there multiple inboxes rather than multiple folders? In other words, when does one create a new inbox; when does one create a new database; when does one create a new group? Finally, is there a way to see the inboxes/datbases/groups in a large thumbnail view (I really feel like that old dude who just wants the button put back on the bottom of the iPhone, or where is my floppy drive, I don’t want the cloud).

One for tax-related documents, one for research on particle physics. Why would I want to search the first one for articles on the Higgs bison? Or the second one for my tax-deductible expenses in 2021?

You don’t. Apart from the global one, inboxes exist on each for each database and are created by DT.

You aren’t.

Don’t think in analogies, they don’t get you far here. A group looks like a folder, but it is not the same. It’s a logical concept, not a physical one.
And don’t index files unless you have a very (very!) good reason to.

1 Like

The One Database vs Many Databases question comes up frequently with new users.

My answer is that I have databases for freelance work gigs, one per gig, show, season, or company depending on the contract. I also have databases for a personal Journal, one for financial documents, and a large one called scrapbook where all my hobbies and interests get expressed in links, articles, photos, notes, and whatever.
Not to put too fine a point on it but when I am on a gig I really don’t need my personal journal being anywhere near the surface of a search. My main laptop is locked down with many levels of encryption and security measures but it also can be a screening machine on set where any number of strangers are with me watching or listening to new work. I need everything siloed for each gig and in DevonThink land that means, for me, separate databases.
But there are others here who subscribe to the One Giant Bucket method and after that category there are the Everything In Groups people and the Tags, Label, and Smart Groups Crowd.
You pick a flavour, start out along that path, if it works for you, keep going. If not, recalibrate, read the forum for people’s other methods and try another path.

2 Likes

Makes sense; but I guess I don’t see why there needs to be separation since a search for “Higgs” is unlikely to present a document for “expenses.” Although as I type this, I guess you could be deducting travel expenses to a conference. as @SlickSlack said, there are different philosophies including the “one big bucket” philosophy.

Man, I have like two dozen questions about quantum weirdness and the double slip experiment that the you tube videos just don’t seem to answer.

What is the difference then?

I feel like I do have a good reason, but that is what I trying to figure out. (Each post is giving me a little bit more insight into why my reasonings are not as pertinent as I thought.

Right now, I have separate databases for essentially each chapter of my dissertation; But it does sound like @SlickSlack and @chrillek are both indicating that, if they were me, all history research for the dissertation would be in one database.

I am probably actually creating too many groups and subgroups then.

When I scanned documents in the archives yesterday onto my Mac, I did so though finder since I couldn’t find a way to do it directly in devonthink. When doing that, I created different folders and sub folders getting all the way down to the actual document (e.g. Dodd papers, Box 2, Folder 7) When I indexed them into DevonThink, I brought the top level folder (e.g. Dodd papers), and it created the subgroups. The purpose of scanning it that way was so that I would keep track of where the document could be found for citation purposes.

  • I don’t know, I feel like there is a better way. I just don’t know. Additionally, I indexed them into DevonThink and then had to go in and have each one OCR. This created duplicate files in my folders. I then had to delete the originals (I do think I was told a way to automatically do this). I am also sure there are smart Rules that I could use to do some of this, and maybe the hostly to indexing is part of this discussion. I am just not sure.

That’s what I’d do.

As you describe what you’ve done, does seem to the the case.

1 Like

Have you looked at the manual or Help > Tutorials?

Yes. I even paid for a “DevonThink for Historians.” It was not worth it.

I just tried to export the database to see the file structure that it would be in if I had to export it. But I am getting a verification failure. Based on another thread, I should verify and repair. But that failed as well. Is this because many of the files are indexed rather than imported?