Include subfolders vs exclude folders

[surrender]

Does the include subfolder option in Name & location tab in Find files override Exclude folders.

Eg.

I am looking for *.t?f files in all folders except xyz folder and deeper.

I have 'include subfolders' option checked in Name and Location field and have included xyz folder in exclude folders.

It still searches inside xyz folder, why??

Dont know what i missed. .

[admin]

It still searches inside xyz folder, why??

Because it's buggy. ... fix is coming... thanks, man!

[surrender]

Additionally would be nice to have an option to include/exclude subfolders in the 'excluded folders' tab, because there might files in xyz folder which you dont want to search but still would like to search subfolders.

[admin]

Additionally would be nice to have an option to include/exclude subfolders in the 'excluded folders' tab, because there might files in xyz folder which you dont want to search but still would like to search subfolders.

At the moment this is hardcoded to "include". Internally this is done simply by appending an "*" to the folder spec before comparison. If I quit doing this, you could include/exclude subfolders on a per-item basis: you could append an "*" or not.
Adding a for-all-checkbox "include/exclude subfolders" would then rather be "always include subfolders/decide per-item whether to include subfolders (by adding "*")".
Good or confusing?

[j_c_hallgren]

So...how would we handle this potential situation?
Suppose I have two high level folders excluded, say ABC and XYZ.
I want to ignore any files in ABC and within ANY/ALL of its subfolders...
I want to exclude files in XYZ but DO want to search sub-folder YYY within it. I also want to exclude any other subfolders with XYZ, such as ZZZ.

I'm not sure if this is the scenario that "surrender" described but it's one that could easily happen in my setup.

A similar situation occurs when I do backups via SyncBack...it allows me to check on/off each of the subfolders that I want processed.

[surrender]

Sorry, a bit confused with the terms i guess.

Ok let me understand this with examples:

I have folders A (subfolders 1,2,3) and B (subfolders 4,5,6).

If i plan to exclude them in my search, there can be three situations:

1) Excluding BOTH A and B and its subfolders. (exclude: A,B,1-6)
2) Excluding ONLY A and B and NOT its subfolders. (exclude: A,B NOT 1-6)
3) Excluding ONLY subfolders and not A and B. (exclude:1-6 ONLY)

This is how i do it:
1: default (i guess).
2: Dont know.
3: Exclude 1-6 individually.

[admin]

Sorry, a bit confused with the terms i guess.

No, I got you.

1) Excluding BOTH A and B and its subfolders. (exclude: A,B,1-6)
2) Excluding ONLY A and B and NOT its subfolders. (exclude: A,B NOT 1-6)
3) Excluding ONLY subfolders and not A and B. (exclude:1-6 ONLY)

In the moment:
1: default
2: not possible
3: Exclude 1-6 individually.

If I do what I suggested in my last post:
1: exclude A* and B*
2: exclude A and B
3: Exclude 1-6 individually.

A better solution for case 3 would be a "positive list" or "include list" that overwrites the exclude list. I think Leopoldus suggested this already. But that might add more confusion than clarity...

[admin]

A similar situation occurs when I do backups via SyncBack...it allows me to check on/off each of the subfolders that I want processed.

OK, this would be the deluxe exclusion. Have a checkbox in front of each tree node. But this would mean a lot of checking work... I don't want to do that.

I think you are all taking the concept of exclusion a bit too far. The original idea was to generally exclude things like the recycle bin from search, but not to design complex search location patterns.

[surrender]

Sorry, a bit confused with the terms i guess.

No, I got you.

I meant I got confused with some of your terms.

If I do what I suggested in my last post:
1: exclude A* and B*
2: exclude A and B
3: Exclude 1-6 individually. ...

Well, sounds better than whats there at the moment. But I wish we could have 3 radio buttons:

1) Exclude ALL.
2) Exclude PARENT folder only.
3) Exclude SUBFOLDERS only.

or something similar.

Just a wish.

[j_c_hallgren]

OK, this would be the deluxe exclusion. Have a checkbox in front of each tree node. But this would mean a lot of checking work... I don't want to do that.
I think you are all taking the concept of exclusion a bit too far.

That's perfectly acceptable...I was just presenting a situation that I was wondering how it might be handled... thus maybe.. if as:

But I wish we could have 3 radio buttons:
1) Exclude ALL.
2) Exclude PARENT folder only.
3) Exclude SUBFOLDERS only.

This plus a ACTIVE/INACTIVE type checkbox could be available as options for each entry in the list, that would handle a VAST number of situations....sort of a 3 columned list of excludes that way...but know that I'm just presenting this as a wish/desire, so any improvement in this area would be helpful...

The one option that I REALLY would love at the entry level is, as posted before, the ability to temporarily turn off an entry without deleting it...right now, I do this be renaming drive to a non-existing value...but being able to make it active or inactive would be much easier/cleaner.

[admin]

The one option that I REALLY would love at the entry level is, as posted before, the ability to temporarily turn off an entry without deleting it...right now, I do this be renaming drive to a non-existing value...but being able to make it active or inactive would be much easier/cleaner.

Yep, this comes pretty soon on my list.

[admin]

The one option that I REALLY would love at the entry level is, as posted before, the ability to temporarily turn off an entry without deleting it...right now, I do this be renaming drive to a non-existing value...but being able to make it active or inactive would be much easier/cleaner.

Yep, this comes pretty soon on my list.

It has been done.