Discuss: How should searches in the "Collections" section of the passage guide be sorted?

Currently the collections section of the passage guide sorts search results by rank. However, I think it would be far more useful to have it grouped by book, and have the books ordered first by priority, and second by number of hits/relevancy.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Todd Phillips

I do, too, or rather, I'd like at least as many options for sorting that the regular search has (which I think should be expanded to include sorts like what you're describing).

Damian McGrath

Currently the collections section of the passage guide sorts search results by rank. However, I think it would be far more useful to have it grouped by book, and have the books ordered first by priority, and second by number of hits/relevancy.

What do you think?

Absolutely. This has been a bugbear of mine since Beta testing - sorted by book, collapsible results - some sort of ranking for books.

Debra W Bouey

Currently the collections section of the passage guide sorts search results by rank. However, I think it would be far more useful to have it grouped by book, and have the books ordered first by priority, and second by number of hits/relevancy.

What do you think?

Affirmative to the max.

TCBlack

Spot on Mark, this seems to be the most natural to my brain as well.

Melvin Sensenig

Yes, this ability to have this would be very helpful.

Mike Childs

Yes, that is just common sense.

Frank Fenby

I would like to see them listed by star ratings. Actually prioritized books first then do the rest by star rating. To me count of hits and the like is less important then what my rating of the quality of the content or the book.

Right now I see people using the star rating for all sorts of miscellaneous things. To my way of thinking that is a violation the integrity of the design purpose of the star rating field.

Praiser

Currently the collections section of the passage guide sorts search results by rank. However, I think it would be far more useful to have it grouped by book, and have the books ordered first by priority, and second by number of hits/relevancy.

What do you think?

...sorted by book, collapsible results - some sort of ranking for books.

I vote for this approach.[Y]

Praiser

I would like to see them listed by star ratings. Actually prioritized books first then do the rest by star rating. To me count of hits and the like is less important then what my rating of the quality of the content or the book.

I agree with this too.

Melvin Sensenig

Yes, author and title sorts are far more helpful

Melvin Sensenig

Yes, yes, yes!!!

Melvin Sensenig

Absolutely!

Frank Fenby

Yes, author and title sorts are far more helpful

I guess I would like to see at least two options

Author, title - This is standard academic procedure, at least at the seven colleges and graduate schools where I have taught or studied.
Star rating - It is possible to star rate all the books in a mid-size personal library (3,000 to 10,000 resources) but it is all but impossible to prioritize all of those books using the current methods.

Title only sorts were the mark of a person will little schooling every place I have studied. A problem with them is that there are many duplicate titles. Plus knowing the author tells you a lot a orientation of the book's content. Titles can also be rather misleading. A publisher sort would make more sense to me than title.Sorting by count of hits never made sense to me. Maybe I am just uneducated on the value of that method of presentation.