I am having the same basic problem with non matches showing up after I filter with a tag. In my case it makes no difference if there are stacks, version sets, or single images. In other words, I have non-matches showing up which are single non-edited photos, or stacks, or version sets, or a combination of all three. It doesn't happen all the time but enough times to be totally annoying.

I'm having the same problem/frustration with PSE 8 -- when I search for, say, all 4-star pictures, it shows me many that are "non-match" but in versions or sets or stacks with the ones I want.  This is a significant bug.  It was not a problem in PSE 3, the previous version that I used.

PVRalph wrote:

 

The answer (provided by John Ellis):  Some people try to use

stacks instead of keyword tags to group disparate photos of the

same subject (e.g. ten different photos of a wedding), and the

stacks end up having many "best" photos buried inside the stack,

with the photos having different keyword tags.  Unfortunately,

using stacks this way interacts,

The reason to convert version sets to stacks (IMO) is so that a tag will NOT automatically be applied to all photos in a stack, thereby preventing it from automatically being applied to all photos in a version set. Whenever I suggest converting version sets to stacks as a matter of course, I  am summarily greeted with a bunch of dogma ,about how "version sets are only for edited photos, and stacks are for similar photos". The Adobe party line.

But, there is a command to, "Expand all Stacks, but none for "Expand all Version Sets. So here's my question, "if all the stacks are expanded, before the tag search, are the search results still including all members of the stacks"?

Also, since there is a command to "Expand all Stacks", how can anything actually be "buried inside the stack"?

And as a playful afterthought for our OP's enjoyment, "irate" is an adjective which can also be used as an adverb, "irately ". It is never a plural noun, even when spelled with two "R" s .

I concur with many other posters on the forum that Adobe's implementation of the Stacks feature is a failure.  I used version 5 of PSE for several years before finally biting the bullet and upgrading to version 8.  I regret the decision, given that many of the basic features I used in version 5 no longer work the same (and in my opinion, the way they should).

I have dozens of "Collections" I created in version 5 to hold photos for my photo frame, photos for my kids' school projects, photos for sharing with friends, and so on and so on.  I got used to creating collections and applying the tags to any photos I wanted, whether they were stacked or not.

But alas, Adobe chose to break that feature.  Now every time I try to link a stacked photo to an album, I end up with the entire stack.  If I apply a tag to a stacked photo and then filter on that tag, I see photos marked "Non Match" all over the well.  Funny, that never happened in 5.0.

I even found that if I "unstack" my photos, put a few of them in an album, and then restack the original stack, once again ALL of the stacked photos are in the album!  Incredibly annoying.

So I gave up using albums and tried using tags instead.  But when I filter by tag, I get photos I didn't want.  It marks them as "Non Match" in the photo well, but doesn't give me the option to show ONLY the matching photos (again, version 5 worked just fine).

I've been a software engineer for 30 years, and I honestly cannot figure out what the Adobe designers were thinking when they created these headaches with stacks.  I've read the comments that albums aren't intended to be used to organize individual photos, and thus whole stacks get moved into them (whether you like it or not).  Gee, perhaps they should come up with a new name then -- because "album" doesn't fit this scenario.  When I go and purchase an ordinary (non-digital) 3-ring photo album at my local store, I use it to selectively store the photos I find most interesting in the order I prefer.  I don't just pick up stacks of photos and dump them in there!

Come on Adobe -- rethink the design and fix it.  PLEASE.  And give users a free update or upgrade.  I don't want to find that I have to buy yet another version of the product to get the "fixes" that should have been there all along (ala Microsoft).  That's IF they ever fix the software.  (P.S. While you're at it, how about getting rid of the bloat and restoring the speedier performance that was in 5.0?)

As an experienced (and disappointed) PC user I cannot recommend this software to anybody in its current state.  Adobe has created too many limitations and aggravations, and too much bloat, in what should be a top-shelf product.  That's sad.

Jon in Indiana USA wrote:

 

I concur with many other posters on the forum that Adobe's implementation of the Stacks feature is a failure.  I used version 5 of PSE for several years before finally biting the bullet and upgrading to version 8.  I regret the decision, given that many of the basic features I used in version 5 no longer work the same (and in my opinion, the way they should).   .....[      ]...............

 

Come on Adobe -- rethink the design and fix it.  PLEASE.  And give users a free update or upgrade.  I don't want to find that I have to buy yet another version of the product to get the "fixes" that should have been there all along (ala Microsoft).  That's IF they ever fix the software.  (P.S. While you're at it, how about getting rid of the bloat and restoring the speedier performance that was in 5.0?)

 

As an experienced (and disappointed) PC user I cannot recommend this software to anybody in its current state.  Adobe has created too many limitations and aggravations, and too much bloat, in what should be a top-shelf product.  That's sad.

I have some good news and some bad news The good news is that the trial of the PSE-8 organizer doesn't expire. The bad news that is it the PSE-8 Organizer.

The principal difference between PSE-6, 7, 8 and PSE-5 is 16 bit file handling. Since Jpeg is only 8 bit color depth, if you shoot only Jpeg format, there is no necessity of even dealing with issues of PSE past 5.0.

Somewhere in this or another discussion, I believe that Adobe has switched from a M$ data base engine to SQLite (@PSE6). One supposes that this was another attempt at cost cutting, as is offshore development of the program. In an attempt to further add injury to insult, the program now requires activation. Which in and of itself is a good reason to not recommend it, since it seems, to me at least, to be the height of arrogance to release anything so buggy, then pass it off as something worth protecting

Version 5.0 is orders of magnitude faster than  6, 7, or 8 in importing and generating thumnbnails. When the Adobe reader now approaches 90MB, you obviously are dealing with a corporation that is either clueless as to how to curtail bloat, or patently aloof in any willingness to do so. Here at least there's a solution, "Foxit Reader".

As to the issue of either waiting for anything to be fixed, or asking for something to be fixed, my suggestions are, don't hold your breath, and don't waste your breath, in that order.

Well, it's been a year and a half since I last posted on this thread, so I thought I would see if anybody is still reading it.

I'm still suffering with the nonsensical behaviour of the "stacks" feature in Premiere Elements 8, where it seems determined to show "non match" results every time I try to search for tagged photos.  It displays every photo in every stack that contains any photo with the tag I am searching on.

Sorry to vent...

Can anybody tell me if this "bug" in PSE has been fixed in versions 9 or 10?

Got some bad news - I found this thread after doing several Google searches.  I couldn't for the life of me figure out why a software product would show "non-matches" in response to a search for simple tags.  I was almost 100% positive I was doing something wrong.  Why is the Organizer so broken and not being fixed?

I just bought PSE 10, btw....

The facial recognition and some of the other features in PSE are really nice.  I guess I'll just have to not use stacks.... a shame.  I'm sure we are all trying to use stacks for the same reason - just to avoid the cluttered view of ALL the photos.

Dissapointed Adobe.