How to control duplicate files without deleting useful variants
Usage example
A scenario for distinguishing exact duplicates, versions, adaptations, and similar files before consolidating a repository.
From problem to result
What breaks today, how Polimake solves it, and what you are left with.
The problem
The repository mixes exact copies, versions, and adaptations, leaving the team unsure what to remove or use.
How it is solved
Classify relationships, select a primary asset, and preserve versions or derivatives with context.
What you get
Less ambiguity and a measurable review record without promising automatic elimination.
Before consolidating the archive, distinguish exact copies from versions and adaptations you need to keep.
A repository contains “acme_logo.png”, “acme_logo_copy.png”, “acme_logo_white.png”, “acme_logo_2022.png”, and “acme_logo_FINAL.ai”.
The first two may be exact copies. White is a variant. The 2022 file may be obsolete. AI may be the primary editable. Deleting four files by visual similarity would destroy useful context.
Classify the relationship
- Exact duplicate: binary-identical content under any filename.
- Different compression: visual content matches but resolution, quality, or metadata differs.
- Version: another stage such as draft, review, approved, or published.
- Adaptation: a different format, language, channel, size, or territory linked to a master.
- Similar but independent: related photographs or designs that are not duplicates.
Do not delete automatically
Detection can create a review queue: group candidates, show metadata and use, identify related campaigns, suggest a primary asset, let a person decide, and record the decision.
Regulated, published, or differently licensed files require more care.
Choose a source of truth
For each family, identify the editable master, approved version, linked adaptations, originals, and obsolete versions.
Redirect references to the primary asset before removing a copy. Do not leave presentations or campaigns pointing at a deleted file.
A photograph example
Four visually identical JPGs appear: 6000 × 4000 master, 2000 × 1333 web, 1080 × 1350 Instagram, and 1080 × 1350 advertisement with text.
They are one original and three derivatives, not four useless copies. Record the relationship so nobody uses the advertisement as a clean photograph.
Establish a baseline
Measure confirmed exact copies, families without a primary asset, versions with unknown state, detached adaptations, recovered space, and obsolete-file incidents.
Improvement is the difference between reviews, not a universal figure.
Similarity in an asset library helps discover candidates. Governance decides what each relationship means and what can be removed.
Start with your own archive
Create an account and try this workflow with your own photos, videos and past work.