For various reasons, I’ve been working on moving away from Gmail and other Google services. While Microsoft’s Outlook.com service is in many ways less powerful than Gmail, I find its user interface to be refreshingly clean and simple. I am also switching smartphone platforms from Android to Windows Phone 8, which is another reason for this sudden interest in Microsoft’s services.
Microsoft makes it possible to link your Google account to Outlook.com so you don’t have to deal with importing or manually creating all your contacts, but I prefer to have them in Outlook.com natively so that I’m less reliant on Google. So I set about exporting my contacts from Gmail and importing them via CSV file into Outlook.com.
What I discovered is that not all data makes it through this process. Sometimes that’s because Outlook.com doesn’t import the data; sometimes it’s because Gmail didn’t export it in the first place. The first missing data that I noticed was my contacts’ anniversaries. A quick search revealed that I’m not alone.
So I setup an experiment to determine which fields are not imported, which Google contact fields map to which Outlook.com fields, and any other problems which may come up. I created a new Google contact and populated every possible field that is available, but did not create any custom fields. Google allows you to add more than one entry of the same type (“Work”, “Home”, etc.) so I did that for my test contact.
This table summarizes my findings. Significant issues that could cause missing data in Outlook.com are noted in red.
|Contact Info Fields|
|First Name||First name|
|Middle Name||Not imported, even though “Middle name” field is available in Outlook.com|
|Last Name||Last name|
|Prefix||Not imported, but “Title” field is available in Outlook.com|
|Suffix||Not imported even though “Suffix” field is available in Outlook.com|
|Nickname||No matching field|
|File As||Not exported by Google, no matching field in Outlook.com|
|Work||Other (Second “Work” address from test Google contact)|
|Home||Second “Home” address not exported by Google|
|Work||Third “Work” address not exported by Google|
|Work||Work 2 (This was the second “Work” phone in the Google test contact)|
|Work Fax||Work fax|
|Home Fax||Home fax|
|PO Box||Not imported, field not available in Outlook.com|
|ZIP/Postal Code||ZIP/Postal code|
|Neighborhood||Not exported by Google, no corresponding field in Outlook.com|
|Work||Not exported by Google, no Outlook.com field|
|Home Page||Website (“Home Page” is the only URL field that is exported)|
|Profile||Not exported by Google, no Outlook.com field|
|Blog||Not exported by Google, no Outlook.com field|
|Anniversary||Not imported even though “Anniversary” field is available|
|Spouse||Not imported, but “Significant other” field is available|
I also found a few contacts which didn’t have the correct postal address formatting after the import. Looking at the source data in Gmail, I found that the entire mailing address for a few contacts was contained in the “Street” field. Using the CSV file, I was able to identify the contacts with this invalid data and corrected them.
All of this prompted me to finally go through all my contacts and do some desperately needed housekeeping. I deleted about 40 contacts for people I will never need to contact, made sure field names are set properly, fixed obsolete data in cases where I knew something had changed, and so on.
I now have a very tidy contact list in Outlook.com. A couple entries are missing some phone numbers, but in most cases those extra numbers were in the contacts for caller ID purposes on my phone, and are not a significant loss.
Update on 2013-10-16: I found that the CSV import does not maintain the type of e-mail address. Outlook.com seems to assign the following type to e-mail addresses, regardless of their type in the source Gmail contacts: Personal, Work, Other. So if I have a contact that has a single “Work” e-mail address in Gmail, when that contact is imported in Outlook.com its e-mail address is labeled “Personal”. This is a little annoying out of principle, but not the end of the world, I suppose.