Skip to main content

News

  • New version of Geooh Live published!

Topic: True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order (Read 84 times) previous topic - next topic

True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order
It is a minor thing, but when sorting search lists with most recent caches on top (using the "GC Code" button for the sort), any of the really old caches that might exist in the list (e.g., GCYYV4 or GCG2A8) alpha sort to the top instead of to the bottom. 


Re: True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order
Reply #1
If desired, there could be another displayable/sortable "column" for place date. Maybe a Settings option?

Re: True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order
Reply #2
Not sure that it really needs to be configurable. 

The current Geooh search GC button list sort is a pure alphanumeric sort, which may not be what a user really hopes to see.

Usually, a reverse (most recent at top) GC code sort would be intended by the user as a form of date sort in an attempt to display the most recent caches at the top, and not thinking about the old 4 or less character caches, might reasonably expect the reverse GC code sort to accomplish that.  However, since many of the oldest caches start with alpha characters after the 'GC', they will instead float to the top above the most recent ones in a reverse alphanumeric sort, while the oldest 4 or less character that start with numerics might appear anywhere depending upon whether they start with a given number.

So my recommendation would be to modify the sort such that all GC codes of 4 or characters are sorted as lesser than all of the 5 character codes to keep the oldest at the bottom (or top, if not using a reverse sort) of the search list to keep them in 'date' order instead of pure alphanumeric order.  That would more likely serve the intentions of these kinds of sorts far more often than not.
  • Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 07:33:30 PM by ecanderson

Re: True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order
Reply #3
As an example of the 'time jumble' that is currently created for older caches with numeric starting characters, this sequence can easily occur in a list:

GC1CZV9
GC1B758
GC1B7   <<< NOTE old cache mixed in due to pure alpha sort
GC1AZTC
GC19456

While one could argue either way as to whether GC1B7 is even correctly sorted where it occurs due to character count (it's too literal for our purposes here), it's most probably not where it will be preferred in a reverse sort order.
  • Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 07:38:31 PM by ecanderson

Re: True Alpha vs. gc.com Age Sort Order
Reply #4
Will see if I can implement something like this. Thanks for the idea and example.