Pencil after writing metadata

[JoeHolzwurm]

I first use two scripts to write metadata into the database.
Then I select the function to write the metadate into the files.
Now no pencil is visible at the thumbnails.

After a some minutes all the thumbnails again have a pencil.
Why is that pencil shown?

If I now again write the metadata into the file the pencil does not appear again.

[Mario]

IMatch re-imports metadata after write-back.
Depending on your keyword mapping settings, your thesaurus, the contents of the files, what you update in your files etc. IMatch may create/update metadata on import, causing a secondary write-back.

What does the Pen tooltip show?
Which version of IMatch are you using?
Which metadata do you update in your scripts?

As always, the more info you provide, the easier it will be to help you.

[JoeHolzwurm]

I use the version 5.1.4.
I change the metadata with a Metadata template and the first printscreen shows the changed fields.
Before using the template the thumbnails do not have a pencil.

Metadata see attached printscreens.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ferdinand]

This happens because when you write a hierarchical keyword IMatch will always want to write flat keywords.  You can change what it writes to the flat keywords using "Preferences | Metdata", but you can't prevent it as far as I can see.

So IMatch sees the hierarchical keyword and notices that the flat keywords are missing and so sets writeback for them.

So if you want to avoid second round writeback you could use a metadata template like I gave you in this post:
https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=3232.msg21440#msg21440
or just do the second round writeback.  At least two rounds of writebacks are pretty much guaranteed if you set a hierarchical keyword in a metadata template without also setting the matching flat keywords.

[JoeHolzwurm]

It's not that bad that the flat keywords are written and so I will use the second write back.

[Mario]

Really 5.1.4? Or do you mean 5.1.14?
The 5.1.4 is quite old.
Since several problems related to re-occuring write-backs have been fixed in the past versions, first update to the most recent version of IMatch: 5.2.2.

IMatch has to update the XMP keywords from the hierarchical keywords. It cannot let these two get out of sync. As Ferdinand said, IMatch imports the hierarchical keywords, finds the flat keywords out-of-sync, updates them based on your settings and marks the file as pending (unless background write-back is enabled). After the second write-back, everything should be in synch.

[DigPeter]

There is clearly an issue here.  I have reported this on several occasions, the most recent being in general bugs at http://goo.gl/Ljh4y4 .

It is not a big deal, because as Ferdinand states, a 2nd write can be performed, but it is annoying to have to wait to see if this is needed.  On a large write back it can take a long time.

It would be nice to know whether this can fixed or not.  If it is I am happy to wait upon more urgent matters.

[Ferdinand]

There is clearly an issue here.  I have reported this on several occasions, the most recent being in general bugs at http://goo.gl/Ljh4y4 .

I've seen the other thread, and it wasn't clear to me what the problem was.  I doubt it would be to Mario either.

As Erik said there and I said here, if you write hierarchical keywords then IMatch will want there to be corresponding flat keywords.  If your second writeback was xmp-subject, then that's likely to be the issue.  So the question is, how did you write the hierarchical keyword?  If you did it via the keywords panel it should have happened automatically and a bug is possible.  If you did it via a metadata template then that's to be expected (unless you used a template like the ones that I described in the link I inserted in my previous post).  In this case a second writeback is guaranteed in order to writeback the flat keywords.

So it's far from clear to me that it's a bug.  More details please.

[DigPeter]

So the question is, how did you write the hierarchical keyword?
.....
So it's far from clear to me that it's a bug.  More details please.

I have not been asked this before.  I always write from the keyword panel by selecting from the thesaurus.  I use hierarchical keywords as is shown in the attachment to my post at http://goo.gl/gMXCHw , showing these keywords:

-XMP-lr:HierarchicalSubject=Source|Peter Photo
-XMP-lr:HierarchicalSubject=Subject|Natural History|Wild Plants
-XMP-lr:HierarchicalSubject=Taxa|Flowering Plants|Asteraceae|Anthemis sp
-XMP-lr:HierarchicalSubject=Where|Europe|Turkey|Turkey, NE

The problem seems to be associated with instances where a keyword has first been deleted and another substituted.

[Ferdinand]

I always write from the keyword panel by selecting from the thesaurus.

Then your problem is different to this one, even though the symptoms appear to be the same.  I suggest we don't run them together.  I'll take a look at your other thread.

[DigPeter]

I always write from the keyword panel by selecting from the thesaurus.

Then your problem is different to this one, even though the symptoms appear to be the same.  I suggest we don't run them together.  I'll take a look at your other thread.

Thank you

[Erik]

Well besides the fact that this issue may be fixed in 5.2.4.

I always found that using the button to propagate the keywords to flat ones (I'm not sure exactly what it was called) always eliminated the need for two write-backs when writing hierarchical keywords.  I would even use this button after using a Metadata Template or other method for putting a hierarchical keyword in the file. 

It essentially saved IM of finding that the keywords needed to be remapped after writing because I just forced it to remap them.  I know at one point Mario stated that automatically doing this isn't safe, but I've never had or can't see a big problem with this route.  The only drawback is that it always asks to confirm, but that is minor compared to the time for the second write-back when it comes (came) up.

In all honesty, I never really thought of this "problem" as a bug.  I think I reported it or supported someone else's report in the past, but I see where it comes from and why it occurs.  It's relatively easy to work around. 

However, if the problem is gone now, great. 

[Ferdinand]

I always found that using the button to propagate the keywords to flat ones (I'm not sure exactly what it was called)

I don't understand what button you're referring to.

[JoeHolzwurm]

@Mario
I really used the version 5.1.4. I will update now and then I will write the metadata again. (I will test my P&G problem as well).
Should IM5 tell me that there is a new version? It didn't and I could not find a setting for that.

[Ferdinand]

Should IM5 tell me that there is a new version? It didn't and I could not find a setting for that.

"Preferences | Application | Settings | Check for update (once a week)"

Also "Help | Check for Update"

[Erik]

I always found that using the button to propagate the keywords to flat ones (I'm not sure exactly what it was called)

I don't understand what button you're referring to.

It's the button next to the thesaurus button in the Keywords panel, a gray box with an orange arrow in it.  When you put the mouse over it, it says "Propagate hierarchical keywords again into flat keywords".

It essentially forces an update of all keyword fields to be in sync with the current hierarchical keywords and thesaurus settings.  In essence, once you do this, after you process pending metadata writebacks for your files, IM should find that all the keyword fields are "correct" and that further writeback isn't necessary. 

It's possibly a moot point now. 

[JoeHolzwurm]

Checking for update is set to 'Yes' (to set a period is not possible) but I did not get a message.
I also searched in the help for 'update' and I found a lot of things but not the setting for 'checking for update'.

[jch2103]

The brute force method is to check the Announcements topic: https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?board=5.0

I've bookmarked 'Show unread posts since your last visit' and usually pick up on updates that way.

[Mario]

1. The update check is automatic and should work.
Did you run it manually to check if IMatch can access the Internet? Maybe your system is blocking IMatch from accessing the update server.
The log file will then contain an error message. But the automatic update function will fail silently, assuming that when a user is blocking IMatch from accessing the update server he does not want to be bothered.

When I ship an update it's really hard to miss it:

1. I post an announcement here in the Announcement board. You can subscribe to the board so you get an email!
2. I announce the update via the photools.com Twitter account
3. I announce the update via the update via the photools.com Facebook page

(see links below in my signature).

[cytochrome]

1. The update check is automatic and should work.
......
2. I announce the update via the photools.com Twitter account
3. I announce the update via the update via the photools.com Facebook page

(see links below in my signature).

Hard to believe but there are still people out there who don't have Twitter or Facebook accounts

But I don't miss IM updates, it is first thing I check when I log into this forum

Francis

[sinus]

Hard to believe but there are still people out there who don't have Twitter or Facebook accounts
Francis

... ahem ...  ... should I ...  ... must I have such accounts?

I have not, but I think, I run mostly the newest build from IMatch. 

[Mario]

You don't need Twitter or Facebook (if you are over 20, that is).

Twitter allows me to inform followers about IMatch updates in real time. I don't SPAM them with advertisements, I only send important tweets every two weeks or so.

Having a Facebook page is a must today for most businesses. Especially younger people search Facebook for information about companies. Markus, since you run a business, you should look into this. Does not take long to set up and gives you another channel to communicate with your current and potential new clients.

I don't utilize Facebook too much for personal matters (but I communicate a lot with WhatsApp with family and friends).
But for the photools.com 'business' Facebook is important. I can reach my users with info about updates quickly. I post something every week now, usually a short tip about how to use often overlooked features of IMatch, or a short intro and link to new know-how articles I added to the photools.com web site.

If you have never visited photools.com at Facebook, do it now.

Having the info on Facebook and Twitter allows users to share it easily. Only a small fraction of the current IMatch user base is using FB/Twitter, but I get some new followers every week - real users which do use IMatch. And that's a cool thing.

I also plan to run a special discounts offer via Facebook soon. Tell your friends to keep their eyes open 
Facebook allows me to reach a fairly large and targeted (!) audience quickly and for a comparable small sum of money (my marketing budget is notoriously small). I can get the word out about IMatch by creating a special offer for new IMatch customers and then let Facebook distribute this offer to a well-defined audience (people in specific countries with interest in digital photography). The people interested can then claim the offer directly via Facebook, getting IMatch 5 at a lower price. I'll run the offer for a longer period so they can download the trial and test it before deciding.

Facebook is a very effective tool for this kind of marketing operation. The CPM is very low and it's a win-win. I get (hopefully) more users, Facebook gets some money out of my pocket and the new users get IMatch with a discount.

[sinus]

Markus, since you run a business, you should look into this. Does not take long to set up and gives you another channel to communicate with your current and potential new clients.

Thanks, Mario ... so, ahem, you say the same like my wife says (a German  ) ... so I think, I should do so! 
I will really look into this in the next weeks!

[Ferdinand]

It's the button next to the thesaurus button in the Keywords panel, a gray box with an orange arrow in it.  When you put the mouse over it, it says "Propagate hierarchical keywords again into flat keywords".

It essentially forces an update of all keyword fields to be in sync with the current hierarchical keywords and thesaurus settings.  In essence, once you do this, after you process pending metadata writebacks for your files, IM should find that all the keyword fields are "correct" and that further writeback isn't necessary. 

I knew there was something that forced a refresh if you changed the thesaurus, but I haven't had the need to try it out in the limited time it's been there. 

I don't get double write-backs from assigning keywords via the thesaurus or keywords panel.  I do if I used a metadata template that doesn't also write flat keywords in a form consistent with my metadata preferences.

[Mario]

I do if I used a metadata template that doesn't also write flat keywords in a form consistent with my metadata preferences.

Maybe file a bug report. It's all complicated enough already. But MD templates should probably check if the user updates hierarchical keywords and then run the internal "propagate keywords" logic it also runs when you change keywords in the KW panel... Having this as a bug keeps it on my list.

[Ferdinand]

I do if I used a metadata template that doesn't also write flat keywords in a form consistent with my metadata preferences.

Maybe file a bug report. It's all complicated enough already. But MD templates should probably check if the user updates hierarchical keywords and then run the internal "propagate keywords" logic it also runs when you change keywords in the KW panel... Having this as a bug keeps it on my list.

Sure.  I thought that this had been discussed in the past and you regarded this as BBD.  But perhaps with the 3,500 lines of new metadata code it's feasible now to change this behaviour.

[Mario]

The 3500 lines of code are only for a metadata write-back. For metadata reading, processing, templates etc. there are probably 25,000 - 30,000 lines of code.

[Ferdinand]

For metadata reading, processing, templates etc. there are probably 25,000 - 30,000 lines of code.

[Mario]

IMatch is huge.