Completed Bring back the old folder view

[pünktchen 1409]

1 hour ago, ebr said:

Hi.  It also makes maintaining the product more difficult, introduces more bugs and, most importantly, makes using the product more complex.  Given that the VAST majority of users never investigate or change options, this is why we resist them as much as possible.

But without options, which also implies features, why should anybody go with Emby and not with Plex or the free Jellyfin fork?

[ebr 16169]

1 minute ago, pünktchen said:

which also implies features

That is not a valid assumption.  Features don't have to be behind options.

But best not to derail this thread any further on that topic.

[pünktchen 1409]

1 minute ago, ebr said:

Features don't have to be behind options.

Yes, not necessarily. But every option is a feature! A feature that your competitors don't have.

[C.S. 93]

2 hours ago, ebr said:

Hi.  It also makes maintaining the product more difficult, introduces more bugs and, most importantly, makes using the product more complex.  Given that the VAST majority of users never investigate or change options, this is why we resist them as much as possible.

For clarity, I assume "users" in this statement includes people who only use the apps, not just people who use apps AND run servers. Correct? Because I would be flabbergasted to learn the vast majority of people who run servers don't even look at the options.

The fact that ANY options exist is an admission that people need options.

[howllor 26]

On 11/24/2025 at 2:36 PM, ebr said:

If there is anyone who prefers the new presentation, this would be the place and time to voice that opinion. Thanks.

I prefer folder view being a correct representation of the file structure, which I feel is what the new presentation does more accurately.

[Smitty018210 143]

On 11/24/2025 at 3:25 PM, ebr said:

Given that the VAST majority of users never investigate or change options, this is why we resist them as much as possible.

This is one of the things about this product/dev team that will annoy me to end of time. 

Why limit options that many users would want/use solely because other users don't bother to use them. What? 

Example: What if I have a sun roof in my car and I've never used it. Should that mean that all car manufacturers should stop putting sun roofs in all cars? Just because I don't use mine? 

MORE OPTIONS ARE ALWAYS BETTER.

Why limit features solely based on the thought that only some people will bother to use it?

For those people who use it/them they are going to be happy and THAT'S what should matter. 

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't use folder view often, but I've definitely have had my issues with this dev team's choices/changes they have made to the UI of this product. 

The lack of REAL customization of the UI in this product is kind shameful given it's origin with WMC/Media browser plugin. All those amazing themes/options.

But what do I know. 

Edited November 26, 2025 by Smitty018210

[mrmixed 77]

18 hours ago, howllor said:

I prefer folder view being a correct representation of the file structure, which I feel is what the new presentation does more accurately.

Out of curiosity, how often do you use Folder View?  And what exactly do you do from that view?  Are you navigating to browse content for viewing, or doing server-admin-type tasks like editing metadata/art, etc?  Do you also want the TV folders unflattened as @Luke has suggested on another thread that he eventually wanted to do?

(In my setup, we typically use Folder View exclusively, both from a user perspective and a sysadmin perspective.  And we typically only jump out to access playlists or collections.  But my setup is designed for this, with nested folders and lots of subcategories to organize things.)

I just thought it would be helpful to gauge the level of utilization of the "other side" of this issue.  Speaking for myself, I still don't understand what the "accurate" folder view gets you, because I already spend a lot of time directly in the filesystem as it is--to me, having a literal folder view in Emby is redundant, and wipes out the nesting/organization features that made Folder View really useful.  Ultimately a toggle seems to be the best option to keep the peace--although I am obviously not an impartial judge.  But perhaps there are other possible compromises as well, depending on what functionality you actually need to access from your use of Folder View.

[ebr 16169]

12 hours ago, Smitty018210 said:

Why limit options that many users would want/use solely because other users don't bother to use them.

You are pulling that out of context.  That was the final statement after explaining the high cost of options in the product (in many ways).  That statement you pulled is the "benefit" side of a cost/benefit analysis and it is explaining that the benefit is very small relative to the cost (on a whole-user-base scale).

If we added every option that users ask for the product would be completely unusable but everyone only "sees" the options that they want so it doesn't seem like that would be that bad.  When you combine all of those from all users, though, you would end up with a mess no one could figure out .

[Teddy 100]

I'm sorry @ebr, but I still don't understand this huge change within the same version.

Years ago, when we switched from MediaBrowser (10 or 15 years ago, I don't remember exactly) to Emby, we all understood it was a change in philosophy and how metadata was handled, and we accepted it, just as if it were a possible change from version 4 to the upcoming version 5 of Emby.

We followed the rules for how the folders had to be organized, and now many of us are frustrated.

In all these years, I don't think there's been such a big change that has caused so much displeasure.

Please, what I would like to know is if a solution to this problem is being sought, or if those of us still on version 4.8 will continue to be unable to update in the future.

 

(I say all this with the utmost respect and admiration for your hard work and Luke's.)

[ebr 16169]

22 minutes ago, Teddy said:

I'm sorry @ebr, but I still don't understand this huge change within the same version.

Years ago, when we switched from MediaBrowser (10 or 15 years ago, I don't remember exactly) to Emby, we all understood it was a change in philosophy and how metadata was handled, and we accepted it, just as if it were a possible change from version 4 to the upcoming version 5 of Emby.

We followed the rules for how the folders had to be organized, and now many of us are frustrated.

In all these years, I don't think there's been such a big change that has caused so much displeasure.

Please, what I would like to know is if a solution to this problem is being sought, or if those of us still on version 4.8 will continue to be unable to update in the future.

 

(I say all this with the utmost respect and admiration for your hard work and Luke's.)

Hi.  The discussion about options is an unfortunate tangent to this topic and not necessarily relevant. 

As far as this actual topic goes, we are gauging the interest.  We understand there is a vocal community that does not like this change and are trying to be sure there isn't a non-vocal one that actually prefers it.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, ebr said:

Hi.  The discussion about options is an unfortunate tangent to this topic and not necessarily relevant. 

As far as this actual topic goes, we are gauging the interest.  We understand there is a vocal community that does not like this change and are trying to be sure there isn't a non-vocal one that actually prefers it.

I have never organized my library with folders.  Why would I be vocal about preferring this change?  Nothing has changed for people that don't organize via folders. 

I haven't updated my server application so maybe I'm missing something here.  I remember reading your folder structure guide years ago and thought I don't have time for that.  I would be extremely upset If I spent hundreds or thousands of hours organizing as described on your guide just to have it taken away. 

[pünktchen 1409]

41 minutes ago, ebr said:

We understand there is a vocal community that does not like this change and are trying to be sure there isn't a non-vocal one that actually prefers it.

People who prefer the change will probably not post in or maybe even look at a thread from people who don't like it.

[Neminem 1518]

TBH I don't care, I never used it

Always had tv shows and movies separated.

But in the end, this is now the new reality.

And users that have now conformed to the new, will be pissed is this was reverted.

Edited November 26, 2025 by Neminem

[user24 312]

6 hours ago, mrmixed said:

Out of curiosity, how often do you use Folder View?  And what exactly do you do from that view?  Are you navigating to browse content for viewing, or doing server-admin-type tasks like editing metadata/art, etc? 

I think this is an important consideration.

I use Folder view quite often, BUT it is mainly to Refresh Metadata and Scan Library Files at the relevant parent folder level when I add new media or update info. This is mostly preferable for me instead of scanning a whole large library which is usually not necessary and usually takes a lot longer. Therefore having the Folder view replicate the actual Folder/File structure is probably more useful to me. For my larger libraries, I use a top-level alphabetical structure e.g. #,A,B,C,D... When i reach 500 items for a folder, this gets split even further e.g. J(a-m), J(n-z) at the top-level, for admin purposes only.

For navigating/browsing/consuming media, I use anything and everything EXCEPT Folder view - Collections, Playlists, Genres, Tags, detail pages... This is where Emby shines for me and I can customize and navigate as I wish.

As long as I can still use Folder view for my admin tasks, I don't think the discussed changes will bother me personally either way.

For anyone that uses Folder view as their main method for organizing/browsing their media, I can see that any changes that have messed up their "system" would be quite annoying. This is why having additional UI options (although potentially complex) can sometimes be very important.

Recently there was a similar scenario with Collections, where users were split into two camps. The Emby solution was the new "Group By" function to keep both camps happy. (This has great potential to be used elsewhere in the future.) That is why options, if technically possible, are useful - no one is alienated when default functionality changes. Well thought out options may also entice new customers from major competitors that do not offer the same feature set - therefore a win-win for Emby and everyone else!

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Neminem said:

TBH I don't care, I never used it

Always had tv shows and movies separated.

So the people upset have tv shows and movies together in a single library?

If that is the case I have no sympathy for these people.  Just awful way to organize things. 

I'm still unclear of these changes though so I apologize if this isn't the case. 

[mrmixed 77]

3 hours ago, user24 said:

I use Folder view quite often, BUT it is mainly to Refresh Metadata and Scan Library Files at the relevant parent folder level when I add new media or update info. This is mostly preferable for me instead of scanning a whole large library which is usually not necessary and usually takes a lot longer. Therefore having the Folder view replicate the actual Folder/File structure is probably more useful to me. For my larger libraries, I use a top-level alphabetical structure e.g. #,A,B,C,D... When i reach 500 items for a folder, this gets split even further e.g. J(a-m), J(n-z) at the top-level, for admin purposes only.

For navigating/browsing/consuming media, I use anything and everything EXCEPT Folder view - Collections, Playlists, Genres, Tags, detail pages... This is where Emby shines for me and I can customize and navigate as I wish.

As long as I can still use Folder view for my admin tasks, I don't think the discussed changes will bother me personally either way.

 

Thanks for the feedback!  I wouldn't navigate using Folder View for an alphabetical structure either.  It's redundant to the "Movies"/"Shows" view at that point. 

I still don't understand what benefit the more "accurate" folder structure offers in terms of choosing a particular location from which to start a rescan, since the change only affects single-title-folders and you could still refresh the underlying content regardless of whether the single-title-folders were collapsed or not.  It would seem to be more useful for TV shows (to only rescan a particular season) than movies.  Which @Luke wants to build anyway, but didn't get there yet.  (Regardless, I still want a fix to toggle the collapsing folder option  back in.  I'm just glad that I actually understand one potential use case of how this new style might be beneficial.)

1 hour ago, embaaa said:

So the people upset have tv shows and movies together in a single library?

If that is the case I have no sympathy for these people.  Just awful way to organize things. 

I'm still unclear of these changes though so I apologize if this isn't the case. 

Although mixed content libraries are certainly affected by this change, it really affects anyone who uses Folder View as a user (i.e. navigating and playing content).

As for your distaste of a mixed library, rest assured, you seem to be in the majority.  For me, I have a lot of crossover titles that are exceedingly frustrating to fit into a tv+specials schema to make it all fit nicely together in the same place--as such, the mixed content library is definitely preferable for me.  And I especially enjoy that I can directly pull up a genre without having to decide ahead of time if I want to watch a movie or a tv show.  But as has been discussed on this post and several other related topics previously, being able to have the choice of how to organize the titles is what everyone really seems to appreciate the most.

Edited November 27, 2025 by mrmixed

[Teddy 100]

But it's not just with mixed libraries.

I don't have that kind of mixed library, but for example, a "library movies" library. Within that library, I have, for example, 500 movies, each in its own directory, and several nested by year or actor.

With version 4.9, those nested directories are presented among those 500 movies, so I can't choose a movie by that actor or year; I have to navigate through all 500 movies.

(With version 4.8, those nested directories appeared at the beginning of the library listing as a folder containing more movies, by year, actor...)

Edited November 27, 2025 by Teddy

[Zelig 48]

On 11/26/2025 at 3:38 PM, mrmixed said:

Out of curiosity, how often do you use Folder View?  And what exactly do you do from that view?  Are you navigating to browse content for viewing, or doing server-admin-type tasks like editing metadata/art, etc?  Do you also want the TV folders unflattened as @Luke has suggested on another thread that he eventually wanted to do?

I use it EXCLUSIVELY.

Long ago, I tied to use other tabs but, having a HUGE movie collection (8,000+ films) it's almos imposible to find something the way i want it.

So I developed a Folder  structure dividing movies first by decade, each decade by genre and each genre by subgenre.

So I feel of watching a marvel movie I navigate to the Scifi Library, then to superheroes folder, go into de Marvel folder  and there there are all the marcel movies which I could order anyway i wanted. (Release date mostly so i can see them in the order of the general plot). With 4.9 that is gone. There is NO WAY to order the movies within the marvel folder which makes this structure useless. 

Same process if I feel to watch a zombie movie of the 80's or a "Film Noir" of the 50's or a Wold War II movie of the 70's of a mafia movie of the 80's. This cannot be achived automaticly EVER and has taken YEARS to do following the directives given by the developers since de media browser days.

[Zelig 48]

On 11/26/2025 at 6:04 PM, embaaa said:

I have never organized my library with folders.  Why would I be vocal about preferring this change?  Nothing has changed for people that don't organize via folders. 

I haven't updated my server application so maybe I'm missing something here.  I remember reading your folder structure guide years ago and thought I don't have time for that.  I would be extremely upset If I spent hundreds or thousands of hours organizing as described on your guide just to have it taken away. 

That's what i don't understand.

If people that don't use the folder view haven't seen any changes WHY CHANGE IT.

The explanation that "it gives a more acurate folder view" is almost INSULTING.

My guess is that this is the by product of some other change de devs have made to 4.9

 

[Zelig 48]

18 hours ago, mrmixed said:

As for your distaste of a mixed library, rest assured, you seem to be in the majority.  For me, I have a lot of crossover titles that are exceedingly frustrating to fit into a tv+specials schema to make it all fit nicely together in the same place--as such, the mixed content library is definitely preferable for me.  And I especially enjoy that I can directly pull up a genre without having to decide ahead of time if I want to watch a movie or a tv show.  But as has been discussed on this post and several other related topics previously, being able to have the choice of how to organize the titles is what everyone really seems to appreciate the most.

I have one "mixed library" in my hole collection

I use it for those movies and tv shows within the same "universe"

For example, I have a Star Wars folder. Inside, i have a movies folder and a tv shows folder. All the movies are in its folder and all the tv shows are inside its folder.

Same for Star Trek, the Marvel or DC universes I spoke of above, or Stephen King based media,

Now, with "Alien Earth" series i created a new one for "Alien" content, etc...

 

[Zelig 48]

On 11/26/2025 at 5:49 PM, ebr said:

As far as this actual topic goes, we are gauging the interest.  We understand there is a vocal community that does not like this change and are trying to be sure there isn't a non-vocal one that actually prefers it.

Ivé been using emby since the media browse days and i haven't been posting here or even reading the forum for the most part of that time. 

The reason is simple EMBY was by FAR the best software out there. No need to ask for or protest for anything until now.

If the users that do not use the Folder View haven't seen any changes between 4.8 and 4.9 WHY WOULD THEY CARE?.

They haven't even notice it.

If this change was necesary for some other purpose JUST SAY SO. Mabye it's even reasonable, who knows.

But please, don't insult us with the "acurate folder" excuse.

I just cant's see anynoe asking for this change or the devs saying, "EH, let's fuc** up 15 years of folder structure recomendations so we can have a more acurate folder view which NOBODY ask for"

Just don't see it.

Most of us who use the folder view HATE IT NOW. 

So much that it has drag me to this forum and write more in the last month than in the 15 years before.

And I'm not the only one.

Edited November 27, 2025 by Zelig

[cp41 42]

On 11/26/2025 at 7:21 PM, embaaa said:

So the people upset have tv shows and movies together in a single library?

If that is the case I have no sympathy for these people.  Just awful way to organize things. 

I'm still unclear of these changes though so I apologize if this isn't the case. 

This doesn’t apply only to Mixed Content libraries. Even an exclusive Movie library type is messed up now with this new “accurate folder” representation structure. And many of us have a nested folder structure just for movies that is now far less functional with this change. 
 

I’d like to echo the question of “Who asked for this change”? Who was using folder structure and wondering why a single movie folder wasn’t opening to show just that movie? It is entirely unclear what problem this update was trying to solve or fix. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Teddy said:

But it's not just with mixed libraries.

Thanks for correcting.   

So I'll go back to my statement.  Why would someone that never used this feature be vocal about enjoying the change?  Nothing has changed in our case? 

Seems like you are just screwing over users that took the time to organized based on your official documentation.  

Please devs enlighten us all. 

 

[mrmixed 77]

3 hours ago, cp41 said:

I’d like to echo the question of “Who asked for this change”? Who was using folder structure and wondering why a single movie folder wasn’t opening to show just that movie? It is entirely unclear what problem this update was trying to solve or fix. 

I've asked several times to be pointed to the posts that originated this "improvement", but have not yet found it.  Mostly because I'm trying to be reasonable and want to at least believe there's a good reason for why this happened.  

This post which I referenced earlier suggests to me that some of this may be a misunderstanding, or at least a moderate jumping-to-conclusions about how best to solve a small array of related problems.  @Lukehas commented previously that there are some scan anomalies based on collapsing folders (although I haven't managed to determine what those are yet, either).

 

[DMazer 7]

I prefer the pre 4.9 view.  I love Emby and was very disappointed to find all the work I did now puts a little folder in the top corner of all my movies.  At the very least, can we get an option to remove that icon.  It looks very messy now on every movie.