Closed: FAQ doesn't mention .PMIngestIgnore solution

[Hayo Baan]

I noticed that in the FAQ on cleaning the ingest dialogue, mention is made of creating a folder with the name PMIngestIgnore in the root of a drive to prevent it from showing up in the ingest dialogue. It neglects to mention that the same feat can be achieved by a much less obnoxious solution, namely the creation of a .PMIngestIgnore file in the root. I think this should be added, not only for completeness, but also because this will be the preferred solution for many, especially those on a Mac as by default “.dot” files are not shown and thus do not clutter your view.

Cheers,
Hayo

[Bob]

Hayo,
I agree that an invisible folder makes some sense, but on the mac, at least for me, the default system won't let me create a hidden folder without using terminal.. which might cause a few issues for some.
But I do agree the option should be mentioned for those that want it.
I am amazed at how few people know about this though (the ingest ignore)... it is a very appreciated trick when I share:)

[Hayo Baan]

Hi Bob,

Very true, to create a .dot file, you'll need to make use of the terminal. I guess that's also why it isn't mentioned in the FAQ; to not complicate things. But it's not mentioned anywhere in the manual, and the manual should be as complete as possible, don't you think?
When it's added there should be with a caveat/short explanation how to create it on the command-line too of course, otherwise it will raise more questions than it provides answers 

[Mick O (Camera Bits)]

That's a good suggestion. I will add it today.   Thanks!

[SamFrost]

A better solution still would be to have an "Ignore this Volume" button in the ingest dialog that creates a hidden file for you. You'd need a "Show Ignored Volumes" button too in case you ever wanted to change it back.

[Kirk Baker]

Sam,

A better solution still would be to have an "Ignore this Volume" button in the ingest dialog that creates a hidden file for you. You'd need a "Show Ignored Volumes" button too in case you ever wanted to change it back.

I agree that it would be better to have it work the way you suggested in a feature request a while ago, but it is still good to document things the way they are now.

-Kirk