In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The real point is that it is the user's decision to do this. Without
knowing his reasons, you have no business telling him there's no need
to do it. What you do or need is not necessarily what he wants to do.

when i see someone doing things the hard way, i'm going to tell them
about alternatives that are much better, more efficient and much more
capable.

There was no "hard way" suggested. You did not tell the OP about any
alternatives, why any alternatives were better, or anything else that
was helpful.

wrong.

You said:

"why do you want to rename the files?

that information is already in the exif data in the file which an
asset manager can see and display as well as sort and do queries on.
it's a *lot* more powerful than trying to look at a list file names."

That is not offering an alternative. That is not offering a better
way to do anything.

an asset manager is the alternative.

i didn't tell him *which* asset manager because that's *his* choice.

lightroom is a popular choice but it's not the only one.

Changing the file name can do more than provide a
list of file names. Depending on the Viewer used, it can display
information in a simpler way that looking at the EXIF data and it can
be used as a sorting data point.

asset managers do all of that and more without having to change or
rename anything, making users much more productive.

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.