Bug: Library Ranking when filtered vs Collection

When applied as a Collection, rank is ordered by Title.

When the collection rule is applied as a filter, though:

If there is a valid reason for the difference then the Rank column should be discarded when restricting the Library as in the first screenshot.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Angela Murashov

If there is a valid reason for the difference then the Rank column should be discarded when restricting the Library as in the first screenshot.

The rank column shouldn't appear when there is no filter entered as in your first screenshot. I will make a case for Development to fix this issue.

Angela Murashov

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575151#Comment_575151

If there is a valid reason for the difference then the Rank column should be discarded when restricting the Library as in the first screenshot.

The rank column shouldn't appear when there is no filter entered as in your first screenshot. I will make a case for Development to fix this issue.

Development has decided not to change this at this time since the Rank column is applied correctly (no longer ordered by Title) once you filter the Library.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575204#Comment_575204

Development has decided not to change this at this time since the Rank column is applied correctly (no longer ordered by Title) once you filter the Library

I don't understand the reasoning that says it is OK for a resource to only show the correct rank when a filter is applied:-

i.e. I applied the collection rule as a filter.

So I get the correct rank if I filter Entire Library OR a collection, but it's OK to show a bogus rank with an unfiltered collection?

Ryan Gano (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575308#Comment_575308

Dave,

I'm a little unclear on what the issue is. Please correct my understanding of the issue and help me determine the problems with the current design.

As I understand the issue:

When you filter resources using the filter box you get a rank assigned to each resource.
When you don't filter in the filter box you get no rank because there is nothing to rank on.
When you filter using the collection drop down you get a rank that is really not relevant but also not harmful.

We could potentially remove the rank when the filter is based on the dropdown rather than text but we decided that getting 5.2a out to our regular users would be more beneficial than delaying it to hide a bit of extra (unneeded) information.

Is there a reason this rank is problematic that I'm not aware of?

Thanks!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575320#Comment_575320

I'm a little unclear on what the issue is

The inconsistency and effective devaluation of rank, which is little understood by many users anyway, will lead to confusion:

Rank is not shown in the Collections panel but a bogus value is shown when Library is restricted to a collection
the bogus value will appear real when Library is sorted by a column like Rating
when filtered (resulting in the same set of resources) a resource has a different Rank.

Beta users requested that Rank be a selectable column but you chose not to implement that.

If you value your regular users remove the inconsistency.

Is there a reason this rank is problematic that I'm not aware of?

Being sequential it's obviously not a rank!

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575333#Comment_575333

If you value your regular users remove the inconsistency.

[Y] I disagree with the philosophy that we should settle for poor performance just so we can push a new version out the door. That is already one of the problems with users—and potential users—perception of Logos. That it reflects sloppy coding.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575333#Comment_575333

I'm a little unclear on what the issue is

The inconsistency and effective devaluation of rank, which is little understood by many users anyway, will lead to confusion:

...

I should also add the obvious i.e. it is inconsistent with the current 5.2 version of Logos.

Ryan Gano (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575355#Comment_575355

I agree that we shouldn't ship broken features just for the sake of shipping. That's why we've:

Had nearly the entire team working on 5.2a since 5.2 shipped in mid November.
Removed (or not introduced) features that weren't yet ready.
Made a huge effort to fix crashes that were experienced during the beta cycle (54 unique crashes according to our logging).
Worked very hard to ensure that what we've released has been stable and performant.

In the particular case we're talking about a massive effort was made to rewrite much of the My Library code to make it faster, allow nested sorting, and keep it working the way it always has. Unfortunately there were some things that will still take some time to iron out. I'll talk to the dev in charge of this work to determine the feasibility of turning off the ranking for results that are filtered based on the dropdown rather than based on the filter box. We may be able to resolve this issue for a future release but it's highly unlikely that we'll delay releasing fixes for a lot of crashes to the general public to remove a field that can easily be ignored.

Ryan

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575481#Comment_575481

In the particular case we're talking about a massive effort was made to rewrite much of the My Library code

That is appreciated and I'm sure you appreciate the efforts of the beta testers in finding & retesting a lot of regression bugs. This particular regression (rank being shown for a collection) was removed from the Collections panel not long ago and it should also have been removed from Library as per the current 5.2 release.

It is concerning to me that I had to provide such a detailed report to explain a simple issue, and then be presented with the statement "it can be easily ignored" because you want to stop crashes. I'm sure that a few days more won't dramatically affect the situation after months of occurrences and explanations!

Ryan Gano (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575825#Comment_575825

I'm sure you appreciate the efforts of the beta testers

Absolutely! We have the most amazing and dedicated beta testers in the world! Because of that we work extra hard to find the balance between giving you a stable beta and giving you enough betas to satisfy your thirst for the "new and exciting". [:D]

It is concerning to me that I had to provide such a detailed report to explain a simple issue, and then be presented with the statement "it can be easily ignored" because you want to stop crashes

I believe we understood the issue from your original report. I certainly didn't mean to imply that your request can easily be ignored and I hope that's not how you took my statement. Every issue we investigate is a battle between getting the product to more users and shipping the perfect product. When I said "it can easily be ignored" I was referring to the field that shows up when you filter by a column. This is in comparison to a crash that brings down the user's system.

I would love to take another month or six on this and fix things until we post a beta and the only response is "beta looks awesome, no problems found". Unfortunately that's not possible because we have internal constraints and because, well, we just both know it is impossible to get to that point. [:'(]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575862#Comment_575862

I would love to take another month or six on this and fix things until we post a beta and the only response is "beta looks awesome, no problems found".

So, will this "easily ignored" bug now remain for users of Windows Vista and possibly OS X 10.6, 10.7?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/577864#Comment_577864

With all the enhancements in the Service Releases I think a little time could be spared to fix this glaring regression.

thanks,