I agree with Leanne: custom field + Open Term List - this is a good solution to organize larger library.
To mimic it with groups we need two important things:
-
Good searching possibilities. I mean operators AND and OR (records belong as well to group … as well to group … / records belonging either to group … or to group …).
-
Easy access to the group membership information - like we had in “custom field” solution.
PS1. Groups still have advantages over “custom field”: changing the name of a group is now very easy.
PS2. Does anybody know how to extract group membership information to store it in a custom field?
Yes, I have already switched to X2 and started to use groups and I am missing well-working, old “custom field” behavior
KL