BUG: Library sort by multiple columns has erroneous results

5.2a Win

Open Library in grid view

Sort by Last Updated in reverse chronological order

Shift click on Title to make that a secondary sort column

In my particular case, I noted that several titles appeared at the top of the list above the alphabetical order of the rest of them, even though all of them had the same Last Updated date of Today.

The titles that are out of order happen to be six that I downloaded today after downloading Reformed Platinum, so they do probably have more recent timestamps, but that should be immaterial. The "last updated" sort order shouldn't pay attention to the time when there is multi-column sorting involved. Otherwise the secondary column would be be virtually useless, since nearly everything has a unique last updated timestamp. Anyway, the other resource I downloaded earlier today before Reformed Platinum are correctly interleaved in with those titles in alphabetical order. It's just those six most recent ones that are wrong.

Log files:

5658.LogosBug L5.2a 20140422.zip

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Would you still disagree with the current sorting behaviour if the "Last Updated" column said (for example) "3 hours ago" and "9 hours ago" for the two groups of resources, instead of labelling them both "Today" (without apparent distinction)?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588052#Comment_588052

Would you still disagree with the current sorting behaviour if the "Last Updated" column said (for example) "3 hours ago" and "9 hours ago" for the two groups of resources, instead of labelling them both "Today" (without apparent distinction)?

If the granularity is no finer than one hour then I suppose I could live with that. But I really think day is a fine enough granularity for Last Updated when it's combined with a secondary sort field. When it's sorted by Last Updated alone, then yes a finer granularity is interesting, even down to the minute.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588128#Comment_588128

The sorting should be consistent with the value in Updated, whether Today or 3 hours ago i.e. a single alphabetical sort of titles within "3 hours ago" OR "Today". The granularity could be explicitly 'hours ago' for the current day, but date only thereafter, whether expressed as Yesterday, Wednesday, 5 days ago, or April 19, 2014.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588428#Comment_588428

The sorting should be consistent with the value in Updated, whether Today or 3 hours ago i.e. a single alphabetical sort of titles within "3 hours ago" OR "Today". The granularity could be explicitly 'hours ago' for the current day, but date only thereafter, whether expressed as Yesterday, Wednesday, 5 days ago, or April 19, 2014.

Agreed. It should use the value as displayed not the internal value.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588442#Comment_588442

It should use the value as displayed not the internal value.

As I wrote here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/83014/581842.aspx#581842 , I'm not at all fond of the display changes to "Today" or "3 hours ago" or anything like that. For one thing, the sort is neither alphabetical nor completely numeric/time-based at that point. It might seem to be "friendlier" or some such, but it's still arbitrary. At what point does it change from "Yesterday" or "3 days ago" to an actual date? And whatever the answer to that is, why? It's just an arbitrary choice to use that as a cutoff. Further, it's visually jarring to be scanning down the column of dates and go from a "friendly" date display to "March 31, 2014" (or whatever).

IMO, they should use the date portion only of whatever is stored in the database (i.e. truncate the time), sort on that, and display the actual date using the customer's system settings for date display.

FWIW...

Donnie