Jump to content

Bug in the sort order of the cache finds listing


Ville Saari

Recommended Posts

Currently the cache finds on the users' profile pages are listed in quite a confusing order. Primarily they are sorted by date in reverse, secondarily by database id or something else that is larger for logs entered later, but this is not in reverse. The result is that the listing is not in the chronological order, but in a mixed order with the first find of the last day topmost.

 

I guess this would be very trivial to fix?

Link to comment

Currently the cache finds on the users' profile pages are listed in quite a confusing order. Primarily they are sorted by date in reverse, secondarily by database id or something else that is larger for logs entered later, but this is not in reverse. The result is that the listing is not in the chronological order, but in a mixed order with the first find of the last day topmost.

 

I guess this would be very trivial to fix?

It used to be that they were sorted most-recent-date-first, but within any give date, most-recent-find-on-that-date-last. A little while ago, the order within a given date changed to something that at first appeared random, but which I eventually realized was by GC ID# (lowest GC# first). I have no idea why the change was made.

Link to comment
It used to be that they were sorted most-recent-date-first, but within any give date, most-recent-find-on-that-date-last. A little while ago, the order within a given date changed to something that at first appeared random, but which I eventually realized was by GC ID# (lowest GC# first). I have no idea why the change was made.

I think that this is the way it was in the beginning.

 

To me, this way makes sense. The database shouldn't have to track by second when you logged your finds in order to give you a list of finds. Even if it did, there would still be plenty of errors because caches often get logged out-of-order.

Link to comment
It used to be that they were sorted most-recent-date-first, but within any given date, most-recent-find-on-that-date-last. A little while ago, the order within a given date changed to something that at first appeared random, but which I eventually realized was by GC ID# (lowest GC# first). I have no idea why the change was made.

I think that this is the way it was in the beginning.

Maybe that was before I started caching; I don't remember it.

 

To me, this way makes sense. The database shouldn't have to track by second when you logged your finds in order to give you a list of finds.

And yet, somewhere it is still tracked that way, since if I go to My Account -> Show all logs for caches -> Show Found it, they are displayed in the "old" (to me) way: most-recent-date-first, and within any given date, most-recent-find-logged-on-that-date-last.

 

Even if it did, there would still be plenty of errors because caches often get logged out-of-order.

Not by AR types like me! <_<

Link to comment

Currently the cache finds on the users' profile pages are listed in quite a confusing order. Primarily they are sorted by date in reverse, secondarily by database id or something else that is larger for logs entered later, but this is not in reverse. The result is that the listing is not in the chronological order, but in a mixed order with the first find of the last day topmost.

 

I guess this would be very trivial to fix?

 

Can you give me a link to which you are referring to?

Link to comment
Currently the cache finds on the users' profile pages are listed in quite a confusing order. Primarily they are sorted by date in reverse, secondarily by database id or something else that is larger for logs entered later, but this is not in reverse. The result is that the listing is not in the chronological order, but in a mixed order with the first find of the last day topmost.

 

I guess this would be very trivial to fix?

Can you give me a link to which you are referring to?

Here's one.

Link to comment
Ok, from what I see is that they are sorted by when you found them.. then by the GC number.. what exactly is the issue?

I think he wanted them listed by found date, and then the in the order they were found on that date. I actually prefer it the way you posted (found date and then GC#), but whatever.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Not a big issue no.. but can be confusing....

 

Say for example you have found a TB and then placed it into another cache that same day. If you log the find in the order u found the cache... took the TB.. found the 2nd cache and then placed the TB.

 

It will read as if you places the TB .. found the 2nd cache.. found the TB and then found the 1st TB.

Link to comment
Ok, from what I see is that they are sorted by when you found them.. then by the GC number.. what exactly is the issue?

I think he wanted them listed by found date, and then the in the order they were found on that date. I actually prefer it the way you posted (found date and then GC#), but whatever.

Yah, I'm not really seeing an issue here either.

 

-Raine

It's just the lack of consistency, I think. If the order in which they are logged is more significant, then it is reasonable to list them in the order in which they were logged. If the GC number is more significant, then it is reasonable to list them in their GC order. The way that they are currently listed is a strange half-and-half mix of the two.

Link to comment

I've never really considered it a problem. If I'm trying to find a cache page and I know approximately when I found it, I look in those dates for the cache I need. I am unlikely to remember exactly which order I found them in, so having it sort by that, is not important to me. My PDA database sorts it that way, but also gives me the GC# so I would easily be able to find the cache page and not really need to use the find order.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

There are some that take great pains in logging their caches in order. Since we know right now, the sort is by date of log, and then order of ID from the database, I would think it would be possible (and very simple) to just add a secondary sort to the site on certain pages. The secondary sort would be descending order in which the logs were entered.

 

The affected pages, as I see them, would be:

...caching.com/my/logs.aspx

...caching.com/my/geocaches.aspx

...caching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=X

WhereX = cacher account

 

I assume that the sort right now is only on date of the log (not date entered). The system uses the key field for the caches for the next sort - the ID= number. So, it's just a matter of adding a secondary sort.

 

I can't imagine that anyone BENEFITS from having logs on multiple days sorted by the oldest cache on top and the newest cache on the bottom, and yet, this question about the logs being out of order comes up frequently.

Link to comment

When I first started caching I noticed that the order worked like this, if I find 4 caches a day for a week, except on Wed and Thur I only find one cache, then if I logged them online in the order I found them, then the order displayed on the finds page looks like this:

 

Saturday

19

20

21

22

Friday

15

16

17

18

Thursday

14

Wednesday

13

Tuesday

9

10

11

12

Monday

5

6

7

8

Sunday

1

2

3

4

 

I understood the order, but it seemed to me that it would make more sense if they were ordered within each day the same direction as the days were ordered, so that the list would count down from 22 to 1 in order.

 

However, when it came up in the forums (years ago), Jeremy stated that since he (and many other cachers) didn't log their finds in order then it wouldn't be something that would benefit everyone, and at the time indicated he wasn't planning on changing it.

 

It wouldn't be a huge benefit even for those of us that log their finds in order, so I haven't expected it to change.

Link to comment

I can't imagine that anyone BENEFITS from having logs on multiple days sorted by the oldest cache on top and the newest cache on the bottom, and yet, this question about the logs being out of order comes up frequently.

If you asked me to write a list of "the caches I did yesterday", I'd put the first cache at the top of the list.

That's exactly how it appears at the moment, followed by the previous day's caches (again, first at top).

I can't imagine anyone would benefit from having logs in true reverse chronilogical order.

 

Please don't change it!

Link to comment

I can't imagine that anyone BENEFITS from having logs on multiple days sorted by the oldest cache on top and the newest cache on the bottom, and yet, this question about the logs being out of order comes up frequently.

If you asked me to write a list of "the caches I did yesterday", I'd put the first cache at the top of the list.

That's exactly how it appears at the moment, followed by the previous day's caches (again, first at top).

I can't imagine anyone would benefit from having logs in true reverse chronilogical order.

 

Please don't change it!

Too late! It changed months ago. (Or maybe just weeks. I noticed the change a while ago; I forget exactly when it occurred.)

 

It used to be listed in the order you describe (and in the order specified in Mushtang's post). But some time within the last few months, the order within any given day changed from "first-to-last" to "by GC #" (i.e., having no correlation at all to the order in which you found or logged them).

Edited by the hermit crabs
Link to comment

I can't imagine that anyone BENEFITS from having logs on multiple days sorted by the oldest cache on top and the newest cache on the bottom, and yet, this question about the logs being out of order comes up frequently.

If you asked me to write a list of "the caches I did yesterday", I'd put the first cache at the top of the list.

That's exactly how it appears at the moment, followed by the previous day's caches (again, first at top).

I can't imagine anyone would benefit from having logs in true reverse chronilogical order.

 

Please don't change it!

 

That's not what it's doing. It's sorting by date visited (the date you enter), but then WITHIN the same date visited, it's sorting by the order in which the CACHE was entered to the datatbase.

 

So if you find and log your caches like this:

 

Saturday, August 12

GC4678 - First Find, First Log Entered

GC4600 - Second Find, Second Log Entered

GC4272 - Third Find, Third Log Entered

GCF647 - Fourth Find, Fourth Log Entered

 

Sunday, August 13

GCRY73 - First Find, First Log Entered

GCK487 - Second Find, Second Log Entered

GCEF2 - Third Find, Third Log Entered (a very old cache)

GCM96T - Fourth Find, Fourth Log Entered

 

...they would show up on your searches (from the pages above) like this:

 

Sunday, August 13

GCEF2 - Third Find, Third Log Entered (a very old cache)

GCK487 - Second Find, Second Log Entered

GCM96T - Fourth Find, Fourth Log Entered

GCRY73 - First Find, First Log Entered

 

Saturday, August 12

GC4272 - Third Find, Third Log Entered

GC4600 - Second Find, Second Log Entered

GC4678 - First Find, First Log Entered

GCF647 - Fourth Find, Fourth Log Entered

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

What is this talk about them being sorted by GC-number? Does it sort them differenty for different users? I have always seen and still see those lists sorted by reverse date and within the date by forward logging order.

 

The pages I'm talking about are these:

 

/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=xxx

/my/logs.aspx

 

The main annoyance this causes for me is that if I have been interrupted while logging finds of the day, then when I continue, it's hard to see what was the last one I have already logged, It's not at the top of the list, but somewhere in between. The true reverse chronological order would always place the last one entered at the top.

 

And this phenomenon is just as much of a problem regardless of whether the cacher logs his finds in the order he found them or not.

 

I guess one couldn't care less if he enters only one or two finds a time, but I often do geocycling tours were I find several dozens of caches. Entering those to the system is pain in the *** with the current sorting order.

Link to comment

It used to be listed in the order you describe (and in the order specified in Mushtang's post).

It's still in the order I described (i.e. sorted by "Date Found" Descending, then "Log Entered" Ascending") on

the

.../my/ [My Account Details]

.../my/logs.aspx?s=1 [My Geocaching Logs (All)]

and

.../my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=2 [My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)]

pages.

 

On the .../seek/nearest.aspx?ul=User ["All Cache Finds" from the Geocaches tab of a user's profile] page, however, it seems to be sorted by "Date Found" Descending, then "Waypoint ID" Ascending.

This has changed (when caching with someone else, I've previously used their list of finds to remind me of the order in which we did the caches), but it's no big deal.

Edited by MarcoXono
Link to comment

On the .../seek/nearest.aspx?ul=User ["All Cache Finds" from the Geocaches tab of a user's profile] page, however, it seems to be sorted by "Date Found" Descending, then "Waypoint ID" Ascending.

This has changed (when caching with someone else, I've previously used their list of finds to remind me of the order in which we did the caches), but it's no big deal.

When we're planning to do a day of caching in a different area, I used to sometimes look at the found-it list of other out-of-town cachers who also did a day trip of caches there, to get a start on planning which caches to do in which order (I could sit down with maps and figure out a good route on my own, but why re-invent the wheel?) Now that their caches are not shown in the order that they were logged, though, this method is not particularly usable anymore.

Link to comment
When we're planning to do a day of caching in a different area, I used to sometimes look at the found-it list of other out-of-town cachers who also did a day trip of caches there, to get a start on planning which caches to do in which order (I could sit down with maps and figure out a good route on my own, but why re-invent the wheel?) Now that their caches are not shown in the order that they were logged, though, this method is not particularly usable anymore.

MS S&T

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...