Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1papalaz
If you order your library by, for example, the SHARED column then the results do not appear to be in any obvious order within that overall order. Wouldn't you expect all books that aren't shared to be in some discernible order and the same order for those shared with only one other? Well wouldn't you?
A default would make sense (by author ?), being able to choose would be better. I've raised this with both Abby and Tim but so far no luck.
I do not understand how this happens as the SQL select that must be used allows for an ordered by clause.
A default would make sense (by author ?), being able to choose would be better. I've raised this with both Abby and Tim but so far no luck.
I do not understand how this happens as the SQL select that must be used allows for an ordered by clause.
2BoPeep
They are in an order - perhaps you don't have your catalogue displayed in a view that makes sense of it?
If I look at my (703) unshared books, or those I share with only one or two other people, the fact that they are in data entry order becomes extremely obvious. It is harder to spot in much-shared books, because there aren't that many big numbers that are shared between two or more books, but in the orphans it's quite obvious.
If I look at my (703) unshared books, or those I share with only one or two other people, the fact that they are in data entry order becomes extremely obvious. It is harder to spot in much-shared books, because there aren't that many big numbers that are shared between two or more books, but in the orphans it's quite obvious.
3papalaz
Thanx for that BoPeep - if you are correct and I don't doubt you are then that explains a lot. Date of entry as a sort key makes no sense to me and that would be why I wouldn't have noticced (none of my views show it).
I would still like to be able to select my own secondary key - sort by Title within Author for example.
It also hints that date entered might be the primary key and I really cannot see how that is a wise choice.
I would still like to be able to select my own secondary key - sort by Title within Author for example.
It also hints that date entered might be the primary key and I really cannot see how that is a wise choice.
4feach
papalaz says - I would still like to be able to select my own secondary key - sort by Title within Author for example.-
Yes, that is what I've been trying to say in a number of different forums, obviously not well enough however, being able to select a book in our own library and choosing to raising or lowering it in the order selected, so that we can have, for example, the ability to choose the order of a particular author's works regardless of the order in which those works were entered. Select a work, then choose to move it up or down.
Cheers.
Yes, that is what I've been trying to say in a number of different forums, obviously not well enough however, being able to select a book in our own library and choosing to raising or lowering it in the order selected, so that we can have, for example, the ability to choose the order of a particular author's works regardless of the order in which those works were entered. Select a work, then choose to move it up or down.
Cheers.
5rikker
Secondary sorting has been brought up on the Google group a few times that I've seen, and I'm a relative late comer--I can't recall if the status of this feature has been given as in development or not, but I thought I'd let you know that it's under consideration (and maybe in development). :)
6timspalding
I'd like to add second-key sorting. (Probably, it would be "last key" sorting, so if you want author, then title, you'd sort by title then by author. There's no good UI for it otherwise.)
If you don't sort for anything, or you sort by something with a lot of similar values (eg., sort by tags when you have no tags) you can glipse the order MySQL stores the records in. This starts out being the order of entry. But as records are deleted, space opens up and stuff gets slotted out of that order. In fact, it guarantees no order when unsorted.
If you don't sort for anything, or you sort by something with a lot of similar values (eg., sort by tags when you have no tags) you can glipse the order MySQL stores the records in. This starts out being the order of entry. But as records are deleted, space opens up and stuff gets slotted out of that order. In fact, it guarantees no order when unsorted.
7timspalding
One of the problems with second/last-key sorting is that some people will insist that if you sort by X no person in their right mind would every subsort by anything other than Y, and certainly not Z, even if that was the sort I used before this sort. This stuff can get very dogmatic.
8papalaz
Sorry Tim but I do not understand the word glipse in this context. Also, I would dispute that htere is no good UI that could offer users a full selection of sort order. I am an HCI expert and I can already think of several that would work well. As for implicit sort orders - well I'm not convinced they're a good idea simply because they are not intuitable.
9papalaz
Given that setting sort order and display order are related tasks why not combine them in a single UI task?
I've popped a couple of 'screen shots" onto flickr to show what the UI might look like after incorporation.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211621560&size=o
and
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211621593&size=o
Just to prove that there are workable UI solutions
BTW - part of the current problem with iTunes is this UI idea of clicking the column to change sort order let us not drop LT into the same functional dead-end for want of a little innovation
I've popped a couple of 'screen shots" onto flickr to show what the UI might look like after incorporation.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211621560&size=o
and
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211621593&size=o
Just to prove that there are workable UI solutions
BTW - part of the current problem with iTunes is this UI idea of clicking the column to change sort order let us not drop LT into the same functional dead-end for want of a little innovation
14amandaellis
I would like primary and secondary and tertiary sorting, or the ability to sort by tags.
Anyway, for now, how about just letting us keep our preferred sort order (e.g. author not title) between sessions.
I load 100 books at once in my catalog and it's annoying and time-consuming to reorder the books each time I reopen my browser.
Anyway, love this program. Thanks all!
Anyway, for now, how about just letting us keep our preferred sort order (e.g. author not title) between sessions.
I load 100 books at once in my catalog and it's annoying and time-consuming to reorder the books each time I reopen my browser.
Anyway, love this program. Thanks all!
15rikker
Heck, might as well throw in quaternary and quinary while we're at it!
Seriously, though, secondary/tertiary sort is much requested and in the works, as I understand. Soon! :)
And my preferred sort order "sticks" between sessions. I like to have my library show the most recently added items at the top, and I just tested it to confirm. I opened up my library in a new window after closing down all LT windows, and it kept my reverse-date-added sort from the previous session. Not sure why it doesn't do that for you..
Seriously, though, secondary/tertiary sort is much requested and in the works, as I understand. Soon! :)
And my preferred sort order "sticks" between sessions. I like to have my library show the most recently added items at the top, and I just tested it to confirm. I opened up my library in a new window after closing down all LT windows, and it kept my reverse-date-added sort from the previous session. Not sure why it doesn't do that for you..
