Good work on improving the program. APOLOGIES for all the edits its a bad habit of mine. I'm really trying to make myself understandable and easy to reply to
Grouping Feature Problems:A1. I have found a bug in my testing that produces an uncounted result. By continuously restarting the result finding process, you can create an inverse relationship. I'm not sure what this means in a large scale search.
BIG SCREENSHOT, RIGHT IMAGE IS BUGGED. If you choose to keep the 2nd and 7th line files over everything else, you would delete all the songs.
A2. Grouping function does not show which group folders belong to in context menu. A checkbox should be in the context menu and perhaps a column on the results tab.
A3. Rearranging the group bases will not case problems comparing only two groups. However, multiple groups can cause the inverse relationship problem further down the results and you can delete the file you meant to keep and you end up deleting everything.
Grouping Feature Question & Request:B1. If you have two main folders with many subfolders and you group them #1 and #2, how come in the results sometimes the group bases will switch? This is before using the "rearrange groups" function.
B2. Arranging group bases
by filename would be appreciated, because I have folders already organized that will take precedence over bitrate, size, duration, and tags. This relates to my following question...
Other Comments:D1. In regards to the grouping function, if you prefer 1 location of files over another, and have that problem I am having with the base groups alternating, applying read-only will resort in windows giving you a special delete confirmation, which can help you avoid deletion of the wrong file.
D2. Reorganization of group bases with 3 or more groups invites the inverse relationship problem as I have tested. Sometimes you might prefer a specific file that becomes both a group base and a candidate further down in the results. Consequentially, you end up deleting all the files as your 1 keeper file was deleted.
