File explorer and date created/modified change when copying files/folders.

For me I can see the argument for the apparent original design using "created" for the first time in a volume. If so then for me their should be a logical behaviour difference between copying and moving within the same volume.

There is. A file moved within the same volume will retain its Date created because it's not a new file (unless the "move" was done by a copy/delete). Note that dragging a file (or doing cut/paste) from one location to another, within the same volume, does not do a copy/delete; it simply updates the directory pointer for that file (which is why it's almost instantaneous regardless of file size).

Fascinating discussion and I have come up with a bit of a work around as I work my way through capturing 650GB of images onto my home PC. The fundamental issue I have with File Explorer is the lack of capture of source timestamp into the existing field of Date Taken for Raw image files. A great number if not most photographic enthusiasts with modern mirrorless camera systems work with raw image files. Even iphones offer raw images. Date Taken is used and accessible in File Explorer for JPEG files (I haven't investigated other file formats).

Another fundamental File Explorer behaviour that is probably related and equally frustrating is the treatment of certain fields in the sorting algorithm. By way of example try sorting a folder by date with say a few thousand 50MB images from a few cameras that have different file naming structures. Each file seems to need to be accessed to capture a value for date to progressively populate the displayed date field and after a cup of coffee it may suddenly sort the files by date. If this was a once off process I could live with it but if you close the folder next time you open it it defaults to the Name field sort (and sometimes (no idea why this doesn't always work) if you apply your selected File Explorer sort in the View Options to the folder type, it will again laboriously go through the entire process - does Microsoft own coffee plantations??

My solution to this is a clunky throwback to DOS as once I get the mixed collection of images into the correct date order (the trigger for the original question re the clumsy date fields /mage timestamp behaviour of File Explorer) then rename them with a sequential prefix. This way the folder opens acceptably quickly in the desired order. It also seems to helps any other software application that operates on the folder files

Regarding the perhaps philosophical discussion about the semantics of the names for the Date Created and Modified fields then a clear published explanation of their behaviour in File Explorer might help a lot of users avoid grief and frustration. For me I can see the argument for the apparent original design using "created" for the first time in a volume. If so then for me their should be a logical behaviour difference between copying and moving within the same volume.

I suggest a possible solution to all of the concerns expressed in this thread is for one new date field to be established by Microsoft. I'll term it "Volume Date." That date would be the date/time the file was first "created" on that volume, which LesFerch describes as the true and intended purpose of the field currently termed "Date Created," which he convincing argues has a worthwhile purpose. Then the field "Date Created" could become the actual date/time the content was first created regardless of volume, which also has been argued, and I agree, has a vital purpose. If that would create a problem of inconsistency in file formats meaning/terminology before and after my suggested improvement, then the descriptor "Date Created" could be retired in favor of "Date Originated."

In response to LesFurch, the "Date Modified" was indeed changed in the fiasco that happened to me. But, tentatively, I believe the problem was the file archive software I was using (not a Microsoft product) was, itself, changing the "Date Modified" field in all my files to the date the archive was created and carrying forward the "Date Created" unchanged. That was not Microsoft's fault. What the software I was using did is not consistent with what you describe as the intended purpose/meaning of the "Date Modified" and "Date Created" by Microsoft. However, the maker of the archive software might say they have a different philosophy as to what the meaning of the terms "Date Modified" and "Date Created" should mean or mean to them (i.e., "take it or leave it.)

What happened to me may not be any one person's or organization's fault, but it deprived me of BOTH the actual date I first created each file, regardless of volume, as well as the date I last modified the actual content of that file. If I live long enough I might look for old permanent backups on CD/DVD of the older work and see if I can use Robocopy to restore the correct actual dates of origin and actual dates of changes (rather than merely copying to a different volume). As it stands now, there is no way to list my files by either the date I first created it or the date I last made actual content changes. All I can do is sort alphabetically.

I did not state an opinion. I stated fact in regards to how Date created works, and has always worked, in Windows.

As I mentioned, it provides important forensic information. For example, if I find a malware infection, I look at the Date created of the suspect file(s) and search the volume for any other files with the same Date created to find all files related to that infection. If those files had Date created dates of when the malware creator originally created those files, that would be useless to me. The Date modified shows the last update of those files and that's also useful.

For photos, you have "Date taken" to track when the picture was taken and for Office files, you have "Content created" to track when the files were first authored.

Otherwise, as mentioned, if you are using Date created to mean when the content was first created, regardless of the volume it's on, you'll need to use one of the notes solutions such as TeraCopy.

This was a very stupid decision by somebody at Microsoft! It messes up everyone's file system!!!!