Sorting by users seems inconsistent


What is this meant to be doing? It looks like it tries to sort by the number of contributors. But sorting in ascending ends up with multi-user topics sorted in with single user topics.

Is this a bug or just some other weird sorting metric? I’m not sure I understand the use case for doing this in the first place.

(Sam Saffron) #2

Its ordering by:

ORDER BY topics.participant_count DESC

It looks like this field is not being updated properly once a topic is closed which is weird cc @eviltrout

(Jeff Atwood) #3

I think we should just not allow sorting by this column. And I’m not convinced that sorting any of the topic list columns is really useful?

(This is another “we gotta have this” feature the community asked for, that in practice, isn’t all that practical or useful.)

(Mittineague) #4

I am using sort for moderation tasks, in particular “activity”, to close all long dormant topics in categories that have a lot of categories. Without paging it saves the need to scroll somewhat…

I used to sort by “posts” but now I do ?max_posts=1 to find unanswered topics where I might be of help.

I have never sorted by “users” and by “views” only rarely.

I can’t think of any scenario where I would want to sort by users, but then again I have been known to be wrong before.

(cpradio) #5

I’m not sure I want to remove “all” sorting of the topic list. I too, from a moderation standpoint sort by activity and sometimes post count. I’d likely never sort by the user column though. I don’t see much need for that, as there are other ways of getting that information that are better suited (such as the user’s profile page).

Posts, I would do rarely, as max_posts=1 gets me what I want too. Views, I’d never sort by (or at least, it would be rare – it would be nice to see what topics have the “most” views occasionally though… that’s good knowledge to have when running a community)

And I see no real gain in sorting by Topic. I’ve actually accidentally clicked that and went “seriously!, why is this sortable”, then I reload the page and move on :smile:

Just my thoughts.

(Jeff Atwood) #6

Couldn’t you just sort via querystring? It seems like having those columns clickable is more of a landmine than anything else.

(Mittineague) #7

If I knew what querystrings were available I most likely would. I tried looking for documentation and found a file in GitHub that looked promising but when I tried a few of them not all worked eg. ?min_posts=100

(cpradio) #8

Yes, but I believe the querystring is “too hidden”, which approaches the other conversation where adding a Filtering menu/icon/whatever comes into play (as touched on here, though I thought there was another topic about this… but I haven’t found it yet)

(Robin Ward) #9

I use it all the time as a developer! I would really prefer to keep it and fix any behaviour rather than insist people use query strings.

(Jeff Atwood) #10

What parts of it do you use specifically? Do you ever sort by the topic title, or the users column?

(Robin Ward) #11

Definitely not. I could support removing those if that’s what we were talking about.

But I often search by post count and date when trying to find threads that fit a particular testing scenario. I have to admit I’m not sure what end users want it for. People really wanted it, but what is an average user’s use case besides saying “hey I wonder what the biggest topic on this forum is”

(Kane York) #12

Perhaps we need a “top all time”, then?

(Dave McClure) #13

I think advanced search with bookmarkable URLs will eventually solve of this power user stuff better than any sorting. (The query string stuff being a solid step in that direction)

(Jeff Atwood) #14

Ok @eviltrout changed it so sorting by these nonsensical columns is no longer possible. I also like that it removes the default sorting glyph from the topics column, which seemed awfully redundant to me over time.

(Jeff Atwood) #15

This topic was automatically closed after 3 days. New replies are no longer allowed.