I think you could reorder them with the rails console. I chose to enter the fields with their IDs because it’s more difficult to type a name without typos
ids_in_order = [3, 7, 8, 5, 1, 2]
ids_in_order.each_with_index do |id, index|
UserField.find(id).update!(position: index)
end
Here is what the “reorder categories” window looks like. I’m guessing if this exists in Discourse there could be a way to use it for user fields too?
I don’t believe so, but I recently wrote a theme component that hides the original display of custom fields on the user card and profile pages and then renders them again, optionally making some HTML-safe (they are adding some info via the API to a custom field that users can’t edit). I think the same idea could be used to add an order field to the custom fields to change the order they are displayed on the card and/or profile.
I think you can use the existing methods for reordering the user fields. It is a little impractical that you have to open the menu again after every position change. This is somewhat annoying when moving across several positions.
But a component that would make the buttons always visible or a checkbox for a “reorder mode” at the top that makes them visible outside the menu could already improve the experience.
Oh. Funny. Yeah. Oops. That’s tons better than my idea. 
I have a custom field and I have set it as searchable. However on the user page /u the only search field says “filter by username”. When I search for the contents of the custom field, no results show.
I can see the values in the list (I turned the column on in the customizer) So I can see that those values clearly exist.
What am I doing wrong?
Strangely, the values of the custom field are links, e.g. u?cards=no&name=Female&order=likes_received and when clicked it runs a search for the value in the name field. And it returns nothing.
These are the prefs for the field:
Also (I don’t know if this is a clue) when I sort by that custom field column, whether it is forward or backward, there are always users with empty fields at the top of the list (different users) . Only a small number of users have content in this field, but I would have expected all the empties to be at the top or the bottom of the list, not both.
