C1 v9.1 - Keyword Lib Bug (&v9.1.1 & v9.1.2 & V9.2 & 9.2.1 & v9.3)
So this one is plain anoying and should have been picked up in function testing.
All my sub keywords in a hierarchy are duplicated in the keyword library.
For example if I have a keyword structure like:-
PEOPLE
Family
Friends
Other People
Its still correct after upgrade, but has included now
"People/Family"
"People/Friends"
"People/Other People"
as stand alone keywords at the root level of the keyword library. In my case hundreds of these.
Anyone else seeing? I have opened support case 214965.
Doug
All my sub keywords in a hierarchy are duplicated in the keyword library.
For example if I have a keyword structure like:-
PEOPLE
Family
Friends
Other People
Its still correct after upgrade, but has included now
"People/Family"
"People/Friends"
"People/Other People"
as stand alone keywords at the root level of the keyword library. In my case hundreds of these.
Anyone else seeing? I have opened support case 214965.
Doug
0
-
Hi,
I'm still on CO8 so first I have to ask: does CO9 still store the keywords in it’s plist-file?
If so there could be a work around for this.
PLISTs are cached by a system service in MacOS and for changes on the plist-file to take effect you have to empty that cache by restarting your computer or killing that service immediately after applying changes to the plist. Otherwise the plist will be restored to its old state upon the next start of the application it belongs to.
-So first close CO9 and make a backup of ~/Library/Preferences/com.phaseone.captureone9.plist
-Open ~/Library/Preferences/com.phaseone.captureone9.plist with a text editor (text wrangler does a good job at that because it displays the content formatted wich makes editing easier)
-search for a keyword to find the section where they all are
-if you don’t find them the following won’t work and you can stop here and wait for PhaseOne to fix this
-if you find them delete all the unwanted keywords from the plist
-save the file, close the editor
-open activity monitor and look for a process named cfprefsd, there should be two, one running under root and one under your user name
-kill the one running under your user name, it will restart on its own
-close activity monitor and launch CO9
-check out the keywords library
As I said this will only work if CO9 still has the odd behavior of storing keywords in the plist.
Regards,
Frank0 -
Hi Doug,
Its shows like my structure and the BUG 😉
Try following (I can't give you any guaranties if this all work for you!! and I'm a "command line guy". If not necessary I'm not using any GUI tools.)
1 cp -av YourC1Catalog.cocatalogdb YourC1Catalog-Backup.cocatalogdb
2. Start C1 and create a smart Album with search criteria
-- "Keywords has Animals"
-- "keywords begins with Animals"
Notice the results
3. Close C1
4. sqlite3 YourC1catalog.cocatalog
update zvariantmetadata
set zcontent_keywords='' where zcontent_keywords like 'Animals%' or zcontent_keywords like 'Birds%' or "the same for all Keywords you see in L1 although they are part of L2". The line ends with ;
.quit
5. Start C1 and show what happens
Good luck. I hope it helps
If it is too complicated for you, can send me the *.cocatalogdb as mail and I can do it for you.
@Frank
V9 saves all keywords in the database.0 -
Hi all... Received the following response today from Capture 1 Support:
Quote:
really sorry to hear this is still happening.
I have tracked down this bug in our system and posted your comments on it.
I have also seen the forum thread with this issue.
We have this open under CO-11076 if anyone else is reporting it.
It is being reviewed and fixed at the moment however we cannot put a date and time on the fix as we are unsure how long it will take to fix. I know this is very fustrating but we are working as fast as we can to have our users back up and running.
Kind regards
Phase 1 Support
Unquote.
So I think we are making progress.... Cheers0 -
Good news, at last !! 0 -
[quote="DWL" wrote:
So I think we are making progress.... Cheers
Can you tell me why you asked me to find a solution, if you want to wait for Phase One? I could have saved myself the time and do something else.0 -
Apologies RobiWan - no disrespect intended, I have been trying to solve for several months and whilst your solution appears to solve the immediate issue and I think i have recreated your steps against one of my keyword errors, it doesn't resolve the root cause in the C1 code which still needs permanent resolution. Plus many people are not comfortable with playing in SQL, hence we still need Phase 1 to fix it as there are a number of people with this error. Thus I have continued with requesting P1 to resolve the root cause in the code.
However - I do thank you and greatly appreciate your efforts and time given !!0 -
Was about to start a thread about the "zombie keywords" and noticed an ongoing discussion here. Just want to report that I am experiencing the same problem as Doug.
Patiently awaiting fix...0 -
Same situation here...Makes it very difficult to catalog my work. 0 -
any resolution on this issue? I am still experiencing it with V9.2, even after a clean install. 0 -
Again - same structural problem in my database like described by DWL and RobiWan.
Earlier I had been reporting this issue to PO customer service an got confirmation that it could be reproduced by them. Seems to be an issue of minor priority - or more complicated to fix than I might be able to imagine...0 -
Still an issue in v9.2 and no resolution by P1.
Per their response in my support record (their update was after v9.2 was released)..
Quote: "We have this open under CO-11076 if anyone else is reporting it."
One can only hope they addressing this and other catalogue/keyword type issues for next drop.0 -
Also for information - v9.2.1 has also not addressed any of the keyword issues either (given the description, I didn't expect it to though). Support record again updated.
LOL - i have a good feeling about whatever the next release is, since I cannot fit any more versions in the forum title.0 -
For those following this thread.... This is latest update against my support record from P1.
QUOTE
Hi,
We are still working on this.
Its has been a very complex issue which we are having to assigna lot of man hours to.
It is being fixe its just a matter of time.
Thanks again for your patience.
Kind regards
Phase One Support
UNQUOTE
Cheers0 -
Thanks. Version 10 ? 0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
Version 10 ?
I'll probably get crucified here for saying this - but the keyword mess is painful for me to such an extent that I would readily pay the price for a v.10 if it only solved THIS problem...0 -
I have to say it is hard to stomach the inaction of Phase One re this issue. It has been almost five months since this issue was reported on this site and nothing but silence from the developers.
I have alerted support of this KWs issue three times to no avail.
Because of this,C1 is reduced to a great raw processor but unusable as a DAM
Benoit Malphettes0 -
I switched now from LR to CO, but that issue is really painful and a really big disadvantage against LR. So pls fix asap. 0 -
Still not fixed in v9.3....Sigh ☹️
I delete an orphaned keyword, its back again after restarting C1.
To top it off they (C1 Support) closed my Support Record 214965 as "Problem Solved" ....Very angry and have opened another record (228141) quoting my original and this forum post......as well as the problem ticket they themselves raised CO-11076. 🤬
I'm sorry, but i refuse to give up on this issue. They need to write a verify keyword library routine that allows the library to be rebuilt and even if they leave the orphans, fix them so we can just delete them ourselves.
Doug0 -
[quote="DWL" wrote:
Still not fixed in v9.3....Sigh ☹️
I delete an orphaned keyword, its back again after restarting C1.
To top it off they (C1 Support) closed my Support Record 214965 as "Problem Solved" ....Very angry and have opened another record (228141) quoting my original and this forum post......as well as the problem ticket they themselves raised CO-11076. 🤬
I'm sorry, but i refuse to give up on this issue. They need to write a verify keyword library routine that allows the library to be rebuilt and even if they leave the orphans, fix them so we can just delete them ourselves.
Doug
Doug,
"Problem Solved" means that it has beem completed as far as the first line support team can take the Case.
It either means that it is indeed "Solved" for the case creator OR it has been passed on the responsibility of the Development team. In which case another case will have the tendency to clutter up the system without any guaranteed problem progress.
Now I would fully agree that the "Problem Solved" status may not be the most tactful of descriptions but it's just possible that the system in use is used for multiple purposes and does not currently offer the option to provide a more graduated and nuanced output - and that even if it did its primary purpose from the company point of view (to manage and report on the activities and effort undertaken as well as record and co-ordinate problems and responses) could be compromised.
I speak from personal experiences of both running and managing an in-house technical support system and helping clients implement their own.
Ideally the Case status will also have some note or notes in the text describing what the outcome has been as understood by the supporter(s) involved.
If that is not so then one might have room for further discussions.
Either way I would never recommend re-opening a case under it's old number since it just confuses the analysis of success and failure. We always recommend a "follow-up" Case that provides a direct link (or chain if things recur frequently for some reason) and much more informative performance analysis when needed. Original number plus a sequence number works fine if the system supports that.
This reply has headed a long way off topic but I did so in order to try to persuade you not to feel anger. You just have people dealing with a system that might not be as ideally flexible as might be desirable. On the other hand it may offer the potential for a more efficient use of supporter's time and better analysis of results by trying to keep things as simple as possible. There is usually a trade off somewhere along the line.
HTH.
Grant0 -
I'm finding a similar issue where I delete a keyword and it reappears when I reopen C1 v9.3. Not sure what is causing this as I can't find the keyword in my catalog but it keeps coming back after deletion. ☹️ 0 -
HI Grant,
I know you're almost always in defense of the technical apsects of PO's operation, even so that I start to wonder whether you're not secretly working for them 😊
Anyway, "case solved" for an end-user means "case solved". That is the only view the user has on the system, and that is what he uses to build a conceptual model of how the system works. And one of the main principles in UX is to make sure that the conceptual model he (or she) builds by interacting with the system matches the actual model that is implemented behind the scenes. If these two models don't match, the system is seemingly 'broken' and frustration arises. There is some very good literature about that (D. Norman, A. Cooper, to name a few).
And whether they use the system for other purposes or not is their problem; it mustn't be ours. If they can't or won't show a more fine-grained status, that's fine by me. But then they must show it as "Issue escalated" or something like that, and use "case solved" when the first line was able to actually solve the user's problem.
This isn't the first time people get confused and frustrated, and it won't be the last. A simple change could fix that.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Peter.0 -
You just have people dealing with a system that might not be as ideally flexible as might be desirable. On the other hand it may offer the potential for a more efficient use of supporter's time
And here we have people (us, the purchasers) who expect the software to be as flexible as touted in the selling advertisements; and regarding the time, it seems quite appropriate to me that the 'supporters' should respect my time which is as valuable as theirs.
Tech support took quite a nice slice of my time to look at the issue in March and ended the remote access by telling me this issue would be resolved in the next update...And let's not mention the time I spent and lost trying to solve the issue on my own.
Seven months without any resolution is a long time and is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.
Even an acknowledgment of the problem with some hints as to were to look for a solution from Phase One in this thread would be nice (I noticed they chime in when they receive compliments in this forum).0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
HI Grant,
I know you're almost always in defense of the technical apsects of PO's operation, even so that I start to wonder whether you're not secretly working for them 😊
Anyway, "case solved" for an end-user means "case solved". That is the only view the user has on the system, and that is what he uses to build a conceptual model of how the system works. And one of the main principles in UX is to make sure that the conceptual model he (or she) builds by interacting with the system matches the actual model that is implemented behind the scenes. If these two models don't match, the system is seemingly 'broken' and frustration arises. There is some very good literature about that (D. Norman, A. Cooper, to name a few).
And whether they use the system for other purposes or not is their problem; it mustn't be ours. If they can't or won't show a more fine-grained status, that's fine by me. But then they must show it as "Issue escalated" or something like that, and use "case solved" when the first line was able to actually solve the user's problem.
This isn't the first time people get confused and frustrated, and it won't be the last. A simple change could fix that.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Peter.
Peter,
I don't disagree with you that support systems in general should be better designed an often better implemented. However, one way or another it seems that many are lacking in that respect.
That applies even those for which, unlike C1, a client pays a significant additional percentage of the licence fee per annum for a formal support agreement of some sort.
As for Best Practise - some of the largest companies in the world, especially those offering outsourced services to others, often have the worst systems in operation.
No matter how many books and papers people have read the folks on the ground doing the day to day grunt stuff will either make the process too simple for purpose, far too complicated to be usable or simply do their own thing in their own way anyway. Once in a while that works out really well. Mostly they are mediocre or worse.
If it helps "newcomers" to understand what constitutes the process I see no harm in offering an explanation.
Sure it could be handled better and things could be made more self evident (or we might be led to believe they are) but systems don't often get changed on a whim so the chances are it is better if we try to understand how it works and then work with that, in so far as we can, to make a sensible result. At some point it will improve .... or at least become different.
I fully expect that some will be OK with that and others will not.
For those that this discussion helps - great.
For those that it doesn't nothing about their opinion will change.
Such is life.
Grant0 -
[quote="DWL" wrote:
I'm sorry, but i refuse to give up on this issue. They need to write a verify keyword library routine that allows the library to be rebuilt and even if they leave the orphans, fix them so we can just delete them ourselves.
Thanks for saying that - I totally agree with you! I'm still stuck with 9.0.3 - last version before the keyword mess started...
Oliver0 -
Thanks Grant - I appreciate your response. The thing that got me going, aside from the issue still being there in v9.3 was that the ticket had "Problem Solved" and wouldnt let me re-open (the buttons were grayed out). So I ended up opening another ticket pointing to my original.
I really think their system should change its nonclemature, so that if it is not solved it says something like "Problem Assigned" or "Waiting Resolution", "No Issue found - closed", "Problem Solved" etc, and the original incident/ticket only goes to Problem Solved status when the Problem is actually solved. I suspect its all about statistics in some respects. That is, having very few tickets open or closing them asap on the Level 1 support desk.
Anyway..... again we wait. 😕0 -
Doug,
Management stats are very likely to be in play but it would also suggest that support and development are running different systems - which may well make sense.
Unfortunately it may not make sense to the people out in the wider world living with the problem.
I've been there, seen the issue, grappled with the effects of trying to effect change both for the company I worked for and people we supplied with our software. Every time something was improved the clients discovered another "improvement" they desired. Things could very very complicated very quickly.
The other challenge that that is always a point at which different views will be taken is about the level of importance of the problem - especially to existing development projects and objectives if there there is a lot of work in progress and major targets to meet. Extra especially if the problem appears to be a data anomaly from some historic source that seems to defeat normal attempts to resolve it.
It may be that the best solution could be part of some future update where it might be easy to apply rather then some existing "fix" work where it could still be hit and miss. (I don't have any inside knowledge at all for this - I offer it merely as a suggestion based on situations I have seen in the past.)
So on the one hand there may be a particularly awkward correction of some data (if it has to be delivered as part of an update process) for something that does not exactly stop the application being used and wonpt aorry any users who do not use keywords or have not seen the problem.
On the other hand there are new developments to get out for strategic reasons, name cameras to support, new lenses to support, new OS versions and device drivers to attempt to test and, of course, new Phase Camera products to support at launch with a background of inflexible release dates.
Of course for any software development company, no matter what their market, these issues will always come up and decisions about how to approach them as effectively as possible will need to be made.
I'm not attempting to make excuses here - although I'm half sure that peter f. might believe differently!
Just trying to set some perspective - perhaps more for a general audience passing across this thread than for you and others who are specifically troubled by this challenge.
Of course I can write this with detachment since I don't seem to have the problem and if I did, as a sessions user, it would likely be restricted in its reach.
That said I do recall l some time back something similar in one of the sessions - might even have been back in V8 - but it was, to me, no more than a mild irritation that I could not readily get rid of the problem.
In the end either I did manage to eliminate it somehow or I finished work on the session and the problem was filed away. I can understand that if solely working with a catalogue and seeing the matter on a daily basis the sense of frustration and annoyance would be much greater.
And yes, if not handled carefully some seemingly innocuous wording can become confrontational.
A little story remembered from decades ago when I was running the vendor side of an implementation project in Sweden part time.
The client was, amongst other things, a service company dealing with computers and peripherals and ATM machines for banks. The story dates to some time before the project I was involved with.
They won a large new contract from a major American bank for technical and hardware support. The terms were that there should be an immediate response to the incoming call and at least an initial report back to the client within 2 hours, fax or phone and fax.
Being keen to show how good their service would be (and how smart they were at solving problem quickly) when the first call came in the top people dived in on it at a technical level and worked away at trying to find the fix.
After 1 hr and 55 minutes someone remembered the 2hr update requirement.
Not wanting to fail to deliver against the contract deliverable terms on the very first job that came in someone rushed to a fax machine and sent an update message but the conversion from Swedish to English lost some thing in the conversion.
"We are hardly working on your problem." was a message that resulted in a number of calls between senior managers of client and vendor and there was, I was told, a lot of time expended settling everything down afterwards before the client gained confidence that all would be well with the contract. All for two words in a not so great order and 2 letters that were unnecessary embellishment.
Sorry to digress but I hope you found the story at least vaguely amusing.
Grant0 -
So i did extensive testing on this issue in the last couple of days on trial of C1 Pro v10. Some but not all orphans disappeared after the upgrade(maybe a third). Upon deleting the first of the remaining orphan keyword in v10 there is a 30-60 second delay whilst C1 does its thing (beach ball spinning) but eventually it deletes successfully. All subsequent deletes are near enough to instantaneous. More importantly, when you stop/start C1 the keywords stay deleted. I tested various combinations including multiple keyword deletes, hierarchical adds and deletes and non orphans and other than that initial delay on the first deletion after C1 is started, all works fine. I can live with that.
The issue is finally resolved in v10.
I have updated my support record for them to close!
Whew....what a ride. Thanks to all those who followed this post and assisted with support records!
😄0 -
That is good news.
Phase One needs to release v9.4 with the v10 bug fixes at least.0 -
Lucky you. v10 has not fixed my Kw issue, they delete ok but they reappear after closing/reopening C1 0 -
[quote="NNN635730126589323397" wrote:
Lucky you. v10 has not fixed my Kw issue, they delete ok but they reappear after closing/reopening C1
Sounds like you have an issue local to your machine - which is maybe what the V10 fix addresses in principle but for some reason it has not applied during your installation.
But I'm guessing.
Try another install?
If still the same, contact support.
Grant0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
62件のコメント