Simultaneous link of related items

Hello @pmcarrion! 👋

Thank you for the feedback! This has indeed been requested by others before and I think that it would be a useful feature personally. I've let our product team know of your request, they'll consider adding this functionality in future versions of 1Password. 🙂

-Dave

ref: PB-41855266

Heya Dave!
I've seen this requested repeatedly. I'd like to add a bit more to it:

I'd like to see the process of relating things to other things to be MUCH easier...

consider drag-and-drop, or some form of 'relate items' mode.... having to switch to 'edit' mode for EVERY SINGLE ITEM .... only to THEN have to do the same in reverse is just .... OBTUSE

or, perhaps make it easy to 'create a related item' from an existing item. (wherein one could select:
- hierarchical:
- unidirectional:
- relationship TO parent FROM 'new-related-item'
- relationship FROM parent TO 'new-related-item'
- bidirectional:
- relationship FROM parent TO 'new-related-item' AND relationship FROM 'new-related-item' TO parent
- lateral:
- unidirectional:
- relationship FROM all siblings TO new related item
- relationship TO siblings FROM new related item
- bidirectional:
- relationship FROM all siblings TO new related item
- relationship FROM new related item TO all siblings

create-another-like...
Say you have a server, which you create several api keys for...
Having the ability to set a template for a related thing... ie:
api-key-for_$service
(which has a slew of 'unique' attributes, as well as some URLs populated)

this would make relating items a whole lot easier... and generally more useful, IMO...

course, it also makes the idea a whole lot more complicated.....

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@wolfspyre

Thank you for the detailed feedback! I've passed it along to the team internally. 🙂

-Dave

ref: PB-42181357

Is there a roadmap published somewhere that lets us know what the status is on various feature requests? People have been requesting basic improvements to linked items for several years now, and the only feedback we get is that it will be communicated to the team. As implemented, the feature is incredibly tedious. It would be nice to know if any of these requests for the feature are under serious consideration or not.

@ladewig

We tend to play things pretty close to the chest and avoid announcing changes and new features in advance in order to avoid disappointing folks if something doesn't work out or is delayed.

This feature request is still open in the backlog with our product team to be considered for the future. When, and if, the feature request is implemented it'll be noted in our release notes: 1Password Releases

-Dave

ref: PB-42511060

I understand that, it just would be nice to know that a feature request is still open and not closed. Saying it's under consideration is sufficient and isn't promising anything.

Just my two cents. Thanks.

@ladewig

Absolutely! You can always ask about a specific feature request and I can look into that for you and see if there are any updates that I can share. 🙂

This feature request is still open in the backlog but I don't see any movement at the moment.

-Dave

I can think of several reasons why this is a generally complex ask...

nevertheless.

as-implemented, related items are painful to use, and misleading.... especially given that, if one goes to add reverse-links, there's no 'show me all the things that link to this item' mechanism.

there's no weighting of 'these things have a greater co-relationship to me than everything else'
so backlinking is just... TOIL.

and cloned items don't get any love either... if item A has a relationship with item B, and you clone item A, item B doesn't get a new relationship.

that's not NECESSARILY a bad call... as one might not wish that behavior....

BUT IT AUGHT BE EASIER TO REPLICATE THE RELATIONSHIP FOR THE NEWLY CLONED ITEM.

maybe 'relationships' need some tiering?

relationship -> (unidirectional) (bidirectional) (quantum entanglement ((cross vault relationships)) )

this way you provide the user the ability to express how durably/ubiquitously they want the cross-item relationship to be represented...

idk... but as is... it feels ..... obtuse to use relationships.
If this is not going to change, I'm confused what value the feature adds?

@wolfspyre

Thank you for the continued feedback about related items. I've shared your comments with the team. 🙂

-Dave

ref: PB-42181357