If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Find" a Contact by Company works intermittently
In Outlook 2000, I was always able to "Find a Contact" by entering just the
Company name (i.e. whatever is populated in the Contact Company field). With Outlook XP, I am able to find some Contacts with Company Name, but not others (i.e. - I can find "Hertz" but not "Comcast". Both company names are populated in the same "Company" field and neither have first, last names populated). In fact, I am not able to find most of my "Company Only" records (i.e. with no First, Last names). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Find" a Contact by Company works intermittently
Yes it is very unreliable in 2002 and 2003. I counsel my clients not to use
it as it does not give you all entries from each company. I have seen no pattern to the behaviour though I watched it a lot on many sites. Use first and Last name in the Lookup window (they work perfectly) and try a Phone List view sorted By Company. I hope this helps you at least a little bit! Judy Gleeson MVP Outlook Outlook trainer and author of Productiv_IT with Outlook www.acorntraining.com.au Canberra, Australia "I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow." (Woodrow Wilson) "Vicki" wrote in message ... In Outlook 2000, I was always able to "Find a Contact" by entering just the Company name (i.e. whatever is populated in the Contact Company field). With Outlook XP, I am able to find some Contacts with Company Name, but not others (i.e. - I can find "Hertz" but not "Comcast". Both company names are populated in the same "Company" field and neither have first, last names populated). In fact, I am not able to find most of my "Company Only" records (i.e. with no First, Last names). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Find" a Contact by Company works intermittently
Thanks for the reply, Judy. I am using Outlook XP. The reason I do not want
to use First/Last Name is because I sync with my palm treo and I how it lists the records in the Palm if you do it that way. Also, I use the Company field in Mail Merges. Is there anything I can do to the records that don't work to make them "act" like the ones that do (ie. - "find" based on Comany field)? Is there a patch or fix? "Judy Gleeson (MVP Outlook)" wrote: Yes it is very unreliable in 2002 and 2003. I counsel my clients not to use it as it does not give you all entries from each company. I have seen no pattern to the behaviour though I watched it a lot on many sites. Use first and Last name in the Lookup window (they work perfectly) and try a Phone List view sorted By Company. I hope this helps you at least a little bit! Judy Gleeson MVP Outlook Outlook trainer and author of Productiv_IT with Outlook www.acorntraining.com.au Canberra, Australia "I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow." (Woodrow Wilson) "Vicki" wrote in message ... In Outlook 2000, I was always able to "Find a Contact" by entering just the Company name (i.e. whatever is populated in the Contact Company field). With Outlook XP, I am able to find some Contacts with Company Name, but not others (i.e. - I can find "Hertz" but not "Comcast". Both company names are populated in the same "Company" field and neither have first, last names populated). In fact, I am not able to find most of my "Company Only" records (i.e. with no First, Last names). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Find" a Contact by Company works intermittently
Using the Contacts lookup window has nothing to do with synching. Just type
Judy in the window and you'll find me. Typing Gleeson also works, what doesn't work in the lookup window is typing Acorn. Records without a First or Last Name are hard to find - could you put the company name in the Firstname field AS WELL as in the Company field? The your lookup window will find them for you! It should annoy the PDA too much either. No patches that I know of. Judy Gleeson MVP Outlook Outlook trainer and author of Productiv_IT with Outlook www.acorntraining.com.au Canberra, Australia "I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow." (Woodrow Wilson) "Vicki" wrote in message news Thanks for the reply, Judy. I am using Outlook XP. The reason I do not want to use First/Last Name is because I sync with my palm treo and I how it lists the records in the Palm if you do it that way. Also, I use the Company field in Mail Merges. Is there anything I can do to the records that don't work to make them "act" like the ones that do (ie. - "find" based on Comany field)? Is there a patch or fix? "Judy Gleeson (MVP Outlook)" wrote: Yes it is very unreliable in 2002 and 2003. I counsel my clients not to use it as it does not give you all entries from each company. I have seen no pattern to the behaviour though I watched it a lot on many sites. Use first and Last name in the Lookup window (they work perfectly) and try a Phone List view sorted By Company. I hope this helps you at least a little bit! Judy Gleeson MVP Outlook Outlook trainer and author of Productiv_IT with Outlook www.acorntraining.com.au Canberra, Australia "I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow." (Woodrow Wilson) "Vicki" wrote in message ... In Outlook 2000, I was always able to "Find a Contact" by entering just the Company name (i.e. whatever is populated in the Contact Company field). With Outlook XP, I am able to find some Contacts with Company Name, but not others (i.e. - I can find "Hertz" but not "Comcast". Both company names are populated in the same "Company" field and neither have first, last names populated). In fact, I am not able to find most of my "Company Only" records (i.e. with no First, Last names). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|