Tag Alphabetization

Please give this back. It has been discussed at length: http://www.librarything.com/topic/99560 and I really miss it.

Yes.

Yes

A world of yes. ;-P

We could add please, of course, but the request would remain the same.

I did say please! Maybe I should add sugar on top.

And a cherry ;-)

Sorry, never meant to imply I was just (or mainly) referring to OP.

Yes, please.

Yes.

No.
(Just to be difficult.)

Yeah, there's always one... ;-)

Don't forget to add the cheese. Works much better than sugar or cherries with this crowd.

Staffordshire or Derby @staffordcastle?

>12 staffordcastle: I like the way you think! :D

So, yes please, with cheese on top!

Yes.
Yes. (to make up for gilroy)

They are alphabetical if you select all tags. Not good enough?

Feeling contrarian tonight like Gilroy.

No, not good enough. "All tags" is no use for checking the tags on individual books, or for comparing tags on a subset of books. Or for quickly finding out whether I used one particular tag on a heavily tagged book. And it just looks tidier.

Alphabetical in the tag field on a particular book is what we're asking for - even (or especially) if it's just a display thing, like it used to be, with an option to set or remove it even. It would make things _much_ easier when scanning a list of books for the presence or absence of a particular tag...

""All tags" is no use for checking the tags on individual books, or for comparing tags on a subset of books. Or for quickly finding out whether I used one particular tag on a heavily tagged book. And it just looks tidier."
"It would make things _much_ easier when scanning a list of books for the presence or absence of a particular tag"

Agreed and agreed.

It would make things _much_ easier when scanning a list of books for the presence or absence of a particular tag...

And I would find it more difficult to find a particular tag.

There are many here who have tags in a specific order, who don't want the tags alphabetical.
If this was an option someone could click, fine, but not an autosort.

>20 gilroy:: If this was an option someone could click, fine, but not an autosort.

That is how it used to be.

It was an option, which made (as far as I could tell) everyone happy -- those who wanted it and those who didn't.

I probably have 25 tags on some books, and I have over 5000 books cataloged (so it would take an extremely long time to go back and manually re-arrange them for each book). Without the alphabetization, it is horribly difficult to tell whether I already have a particular tag on a particular book.

I'd like it back.

20>

Right, it was an option. People who used it aren't always clear about that, but I haven't seen anyone who actually wants it to be forced on everyone. (It's just important that Tim remember that it was an option, should he ever decide to re-introduce it.)

Very very important.

I remember that there was a checkbox in Edit Profile/Account that set whether your tags displayed alphabetized or not. And yeah, definitely the best of both worlds. I have no idea why it went poof.

>26 jjmcgaffey:
It was there long after the function stopped working. Better that it's gone if it doesn't work.

Os.

True, but best if it started working again!

Sure would be nice...

Yep, that would be great.

I remember it fondly. Those were the days...

Careful Matt. We might have to get you a recliner and a cane.

I know. I'm a fossil.

Bump?

I still miss this, too!

Me, too. *sigh*

Me four.

Me five.

Sigh. Yeah.

I feel like I've been here before.

*picture Walter of Jeff Dunham fame*
Yeah, I don't miss anything.

Just cause. :)

Sure was nice when we used to have this.

I would love to have this back.

Right now I have virtually stopped tagging because it's just too much of a pain. Between not being able to somehow have previously used tags auto-fill to having tags be in a non-alphabetized jumble, it's impossible for me to be consistent. So I just don't do it, which if very many people feel the same way seems like a loss for LT as a whole but perhaps I'm being a bit narcissistic to think so.

^ I think of tags as the biggest reason to use LT -- both my tags and other people's tags. Anything that hinders the use of tags is a bad thing, in my opinion. I'm still tagging, but the lack of alphabetization is a major inconvenience.

Every now and then I have to revise my tags and I can't power edit new tags in because then they won't be alphabetized and then I think of this thread and just give it a little bump. It's just pure habit, at this point. ;)

Tagging my own books became a joyless and frustrating task for me when alphabetization was removed. If it wasn't for a family member with an endearing sense of order and extreme patience doing it for me, I'd have no tags on anything I've catalogued these past 2 years.

I don't mind tagging my own books upon initial entry, but I am much less inclined to go back and add new tags as they occur to me.

Bump.

>49 SylviaC:

Gosh, SylviaC, so impatient! It's only been 15 months since the last bump!

(kidding)

I'm assuming that plans to fix/restore this are either scrapped, or so low on the priority list that the plans might as well as scrapped.

Sorry if I sound grumpy; I'm experiencing Amazon fail today, and this alphabetization thing never fails to remind me how disappointed I was when it was broken or turned off.

>50 amysisson: Yeah, I've pretty well given up on it, too. But since @kristilabrie said on another thread that she will be looking at RSIs, I figured it couldn't hurt to give it a bump.

>50 amysisson:

@kristilabrie mentioned on Bug Collectors that she's going to be going through RSI threads, so a lot of people are bumping the ones that matter to them.

Since there's been so much staff turnover since this was turned off, I'll repeat the reminder that when this existed it was OPTIONAL. Tags were not automatically alphabetized for everyone.

Thank goodness.

I would also love to see this option come back.

It's 2015, 3 years since it was taken away, and I haven't forgotten, either... so bump.

>52 lorax: Since there's been so much staff turnover since this was turned off, I'll repeat the reminder that when this existed it was OPTIONAL. Tags were not automatically alphabetized for everyone.

This. If my tags went alphabetical on me, I would cry. Placement in the tag string has just as much meaning as the tag itself.

I want to see this back as well.

I don't want alphabetization but those who do should have the option.

marking this one! Thanks for clarifying this was optional, @lorax.

>59 kristilabrie:

Thanks, kristilabrie.

Lots of background/discussion on this topic here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/99560

UPDATE on this RSI: this one I've been told is fairly low priority, but I'm marking it up for discussion since it used to be an optional feature, and it could just be a simple toggle setting or something on the Tags page. Will update when I have more feedback from Tim!

It's not a simple toggle. The Tag field used to be just the text you see, but they were changed to be pointers to tag objects to make things like tag combining possible. Tim removed the ability to automatically sort them because he couldn't see an easy way to do it under the new system.

What Tim said was: Feature removed (in such a way it can be added back easily if people holler.)
Here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/99560#2222721

>61 kristilabrie:

Regardless of outcome, thanks for looking into it. This is probably the most important thing LT could do to improve my experience. I use a zillion tags for a lot of purposes, and it's so difficult to see if I've missed putting in a particular tag when they're not alphabetized.

What @amysisson said.