Search for Tags AND Comments not possible?

[chumbo]

When searching for a keyword in Tags or Comments, The Find Files function won't find it if both are enabled and the keyword only exists in Tags or Comments but not both!
Here's an example...

I have a series of Portable Apps of which the name can often be very cryptic as far as their functionality. So I've started adding a comment or tag to remind me of what they do and for example, today I was looking for an OCR app which I knew I had somewhere.

So in the Find Files tab, in the Applied Filters I ticked Name, Tags & Attributes.
This way I figured if OCR was in the name of the app, the Attributes filter - which is set to Directory - would find it.
Then under the Tags subtab, I clicked both Tags & Comments and put 'ocr' in them. This way it would find it if it was in either one of those fields...NOT!

They are apparently mutually exclusive. You need to have a match on both for it to return a result.
Don't know why it is that way and I imagine that probably a lot people maybe prefer it that way but I'm sure you can see that there is a good reason to also want to have it work so that if either Tags OR Comments has the keyword, you get a result.

(as it happens almost 100% time, I imagine someone of the team is going to point out how this can be done! I've almost never requested a functionality that didn't already existed! )

[highend]

First sentence regarding tag AND comment search in the help file?

Find files with specific Labels, Tags, or Comments. Like all filters they are connected by logical AND, so e.g. if Labels and Tags are both ticked then both must match else the file in question will not be among the search results.

And how can someone find things in only one of them? By reading the help file -> Use a boolean search mode^^

Code: Select all

:tags:ocr OR cmt:ocr

And of course this does require switching OFF the [x] Tags item under applied filters...

[chumbo]

I'm sure it is in the manual but to gather all that information would have taken me forever and probably still wouldn't have gotten it right, so thanks!