Ssgbryan - You are probably fighting a battle that you cannot win. It is almost like a clash of right brain logic against left brain logic. You have vented, but you are likely destined to continue performing your own reorganization.  If you concede this, why not take it one step further ? As long as you are text editing a product:

PP2014 allows any Library file to load from any Library category.

Most products have a 1:1 relationship of OBJ:cr2/pp2/hr2    PNG:product  pz2/mc6/mt5:product   PMD:product   INJ.pz2:product

Make a unique Libraries folder for each product.  In it = cr2/pp2/hr2 , PMD , OBJ , readme

Make a subfolder for Material poses (because there are usually so many).

Make a subfolder for Textures.   If there are Material poses, make the Textures folder a subfolder of the Material poses folder.

Use relative paths. 

For the OBJ,  the path =  ":NAME.obj"  

For the PMD =  ":NAME.pmd"  

For textures  =  ":Mats:Tex:NAME.png"  for the cr2 etc  and  Material poses =  ":Tex:NAME.png"

I found that relative paths go down stream just fine, but do not like going parallel, which is why Tex should be under Mats and not beside it.

Doing this makes the product very portable.  The Geometries folder is very lean.  The Textures folders is very lean. 

Portability isn't an issue - ease of use is.  I could do all of that extra work for materials - or I could simply fire up Batch Material Converter by Netherworks and convert  60+Gb worth of material .pz2s to .mc6s and move them to the materials folder automatically in about 90 seconds.  That is the easy part and it is what I do with my legacy content. 

The hard part is going through and renaming the names from Mat_Foo01,  Mat_Foo02, etc to something that the Poser search function can pick up.  Or the joy of renaming materials from 01 Foo01, 02 Foo02, to Blue Foo01, Red Foo02 etc.  Or the fun in reworking over 100 .png files because the vendor decided to be "creative" by giving me a .png for 30 or 40 items that don't actually show the product - so I have to actually click on each one to see what the product either is or what it looks like and then spend an hour or so making useful thumbnails as opposed to "creative" ones.

The ability to put any product in any folder is not a new feature to 2014 - it has been available for a while (not that anyone noticed).  I am not talking about text editing. The only time I do that is when dealing with the hard-coded locations in files in the unique subfolders (such as !DAZ) so they can go in the morphs subfolder that vendors are moving to. 

What I am talking about is using Poser 9+ conventions on Poser 9+ products and product usability from the customer's perspective, which ties into lack of attention to detail.

Another example - SM added a scene folder to the visible Poser runtime structure.  Vendors are putting .pz3 files in them (Yay, vendors are actually using a Post-Poser 7 feature!)  But many of them don't put a .png with it - the customer has to load the damned thing to see what it looks like because the vendor couldn't be bothered to add a .png file with it.  And somehow, something as simple as that got through QA.  Vendors (and storefronts) don't appear to look at their products from the perspective of the customer.

Which, believe it or not, affects sales - Is the customer willing to spend $15 dollars on an item if they know, based on past experience with the vendor, that they are going to spend anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours to address issues the vendor and/or storefront should have addressed before the product was added to the marketplace.  For me, the answer is no.  The product has to be at least 50% off, if I know I am going to spend anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple hours to make it Poser 9+ compliant.  (In V4's case, it can't be more than $5.00 - sorry vendors, but that is what happens in a saturated market - what makes your hookerware better than all of the other hookerware out there for V4.)  Whereas, I will happily pay (and have paid & will pay again) $15-30 for a Poser 9+ product that is actually set up for Poser 9+.

I am also frustrated because almost all of the content being made in 2014 is not actually any better than the content that was made in 2004.  Which also affects buying decisions.  Why should I pay $15 for an item that isn't any better than an item made in 2004?

The "Vintage" thingie 'Rosity just implemented has really driven that home.  The biggest difference between a product made in 2004 and a product made in 2014 appears to be the increase in texture size.  It certainly isn't the products themselves.