There should be a way to transfer the owner or organiser of a meeting in Outlook. If I set up a meeting up or - more commonly - a recurring meeting but then someone else takes on the running of it, there is no way I can transfer the ownership to another member of staff so they get updates on people's availability.

In our organisation the EAs often set up meetings from their Execs diaries (because they have the best visability of diaries and can move meetings). But they're not the ones owning the meetings. If you're an invitee (not the owner) you have no visability of declined invitations or added attendees. Sometimes this results in the person running the meeting not being aware that a key attendee has cancelled until it's too late.

Also is someone leaves an organisation who has set up a series of meetings you have to cancel and re-book them all. It would be much better to be able to transfer it.

Instead I would like something that allows the existing organiser of a meeting to transfer ownership to another attendee (which they would have to accept). They could then administer the event as if they were the person who set it up.

SCHEDULED FOLDER... somehow one of my regular folders got renamed to "Scheduled" and is now treated differently than all the other folders. I thought I'd deleted my regular folder, but I do see the emails in this new Scheduled folder. However, I can't rename Scheduled. I can't highlight all the emails in that folder and move them in bulk to another folder. I can do both of these tasks with my regular folders. I've had a very patient Microsoft support person working on this with me and it was suggested, finally, that I put this onto this site. If anyone has a solution to how to deal with this Scheduled folder, please let me know.

Major issue - Move mail has big headache in moving mail to file. The new beta eliminate and not show the folder structures including sub folders where you can choose where to file mail as in the standard version. Instead, it makes you to type in some key words of the folder or sub folders to pull them up - I guess try to test our memory? unfortunately most people are doing very good to memorize all the folder names. (2) more issue on the contextual menu of the "move mail" function when right-click on the mail to move - there is no entry text box to enter keywords or showing the file structure to choose from. The only thing is that in some cases but not always it retains the folder names (not sure how many can be there). I tried moving mails to sub folders, it does mot remember. (3) Even the standard version, i always feel it is hard to see which folder is under which meaning the display and navigation on the folder structure is not very smooth. Adding sub folders under the right folder something hard or confusing. There is not much indent to show the folder structure well which would be nice to have a more artistic and smoother display of the structure and manipulation. (4) not sure how to remove folder in the favorite. I have folder is empty by default in there but no function - how to remove them? cannot figure out there is no help or button to deselect them.

I use high level folders and lower level sub-folders to organize emails. Using the "Move to" folder drop down in the old version of outlook led (after a couple clicks) to a view that included only the TOP LEVEL FOLDERS, which could be expanded to show sub-folders if desired. The new version of outlook has messed this up. Now, when one uses the "move to" command, and goes to "all folders" ALL of the folders are displayed including both TOP LEVEL folders and SUB-Folders all in sequential order. This makes no sense at all. For one thing, the folders are now all out of alphabetical order (because alphabetical ordering applies only to the top level of the folders in the hierarchy, so if you just vomit out all of the folders without distinguishing the level in the hierarchy, you get a mess). For another, the whole point of making hierarchical folder structures is to organize and summarize emails based on topic an sub-topic. . . this doesn't work unless the hierarchy is actually consistently represented throughout the application. Can you please address this?

Thanks!