It would be awesome if you could include/exclude by area.
Then you would have a good way of reducing errors in the yaml as well as having a good way of keeping track in the ui.
Explained a bit more 
Can you explain your situation and use case?
Without that, there is no reason to vote for this.
Actually, I could see this as a thing perhaps. If you have an area (like an attic, for instance) and you want to exclude all the entities in that particular area (as opposed to having to list out domains and/or entities), I could see it being beneficial.
I already exclude my attic sensors from Recorder because I really don’t need to know that it was a gazillion degrees up there last summer lol. But, as I add new sensors and/or remove sensors from that area, I need to remember to update my config to include/exclude them.
If we could exclude an entire area from Recorder, then it should just “automagically” grab all the entities that are part of that area and include/exclude them.
Yeah… take my vote. 
So, naming could handle everything you list above. Or, am I missing something?
True. Granted, we do have entity globs, which I do make use of. But I do agree with the OP about including areas as another way to exclude/include entities.
Just a thought.
Yes, you can do this with naming and strictly follow some convention you like. But that means you have to do it for every entity you would like to group and those can be part of different domains or entity globs.
And if you have an integration that produces a lot of entities it’s a hassle to go through and rename to suit your needs (in my opinion at least ;).
If you instead could mix and add entities regardless of what it belongs to into an area that then can be excluded or included in the recorder it would be easier to maintain and get the result you want.
1 Like
I’ve long advocated for a way to specify the Recorder include or exclude when the entity is created, as is done today with area. Hiding this important step really sets users up for failure.
I’ve gone one step further and suggested retention periods by entity, rather than the current one-size-fits-all purge_keep_days.
Even within an area, I have some entities I’d like to keep, and some I wouldn’t. And of course some I’d like to keep for longer than others. So although I wouldn’t use this feature, I’m not opposed to any improvement in the Recorder process which might be helpful to some.
1 Like