Tags are not given aphabetically any longer (repost)

(Reposted from http://www.librarything.com/topic/87525 since it may be a while before Tim allows threads that old to be bugged, if ever)

Even when the profile option "Always alphabetize your tags" is checked here
(http://www.librarything.com/editprofile/misc)
tags are not alphabetized.

Either the feature should be fixed (preferable) or that no-longer-working option should be removed.

ETA: Tagged as "Work pages" since none of the categories really fit for tag-specific stuff. But I felt this was better than "Other" or "Miscellaneous" since one of the main places you'll see it is in work pages. Of course, in retrospect, maybe it should have been put in "Your books(catalog)" by that logic... Oh well, can't change it now.

Feature removed (in such a way it can be added back easily if people holler.)

Booo!

Big holler!!!! I have 20+ tags on some books. It's no longer possible to easily eyeball my tags and see if I remembered to include something. I have to painstakingly read every tag (in small print on the screen) when they're all out of order.

Why would you remove such a useful feature, especially when it's optional so people can choose to remove it or not?

:-(

I'M HOLLERING! I add tags as I think of them, and I don't think in alphabetical order. But when I'm looking through my catalogue, I want consistency so I can see at a glance which items have similar sets of tags.

HOLLER!

Were you using it? It doesn't seem to have worked for ages.

I was. Well, until it broke down several months ago.

Add my holler to the chorus...

7>

It doesn't seem to have worked for ages.

Which is why people reported it as a bug in March. You can't really use the long-standing nature of a bug as evidence that nobody cares when people have been complaining about it for a long time, too.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/87525

Okay, I can bring it back, but only in reverse alphabetical order. Okay?

!oooB

Fine :-) But really, even that would be an improvement.

We've been hollering and will continue to holler! :)

I would dearly love to be able to alphabetize my tags in my catalog.
Bring it back, pretty please.

Holler

I don't have nearly as many tags per book as some people and it's difficult for me. I'd think it would be impossible for them to easily scan tags.

Pleeeeeeease we need alphabetical order. Even reverting back to when there was the button in Power Edit would be fine with me.

#7: I was using it up until it broke. It's too much work to mess around with the tag order manually, so I just grumped about not having it and continued to act like it was still there.

#11: That would be a distinct improvement, even if silly. The issue is that I and I think we want our tags put in a standard order by the site, and alphabetical is the standard fallback order. I'm not going to try and use the order of my tags, so it's a lot easier if they're always sorted.

18>

Not sure what you mean by "even" there, but:

Some of us do not want our tag order messed with. I support bringing this back as an option. I'm vehemently, adamantly, jump-up-and-down-screamingly opposed to making it universal. (I'm not sure that's even what you mean, but I can't figure out what else you'd be referring to by suggesting an possibility other than the previously-existing state of "choose whether or not to always alphabetize tags".)

Perhaps norabelle414 was referring to "the button in Power Edit", as an alternative to the profile option?

In #11 Tim said he could only bring it back alphabetized in reverse order. As norabelle414 says: "a distinct improvement" (on the present unsorted situation), "even if silly".

Also I don't think anybody wants to make this universal - just pleading for the "universal" sorting order of the alphabet if/when a user chooses this option.

Before the Profile option there was a button in power edit that actually sorted the tags in the tag field for the books that were selected.

The profile option doesn't actually sort the tags but it causes the tags to be displayed in alphabetical order. You can see this when you sort on your tag field. It will sort on what is actually in the field and not on the order in which the tags are displayed. (Don't report that as a bug; Tim has already said he won't fix it).

I really want this feature! It's never worked since I joined, but because other people mentioned it as a bug, I've been hoping all this time that it would be fixed.

Please please please!

21>

Ah, that makes sense. I never used it, and didn't really keep track of where the option was (or that it had ever moved.)

HOLLER!HOLLER!HOLLER!

I don't mean to be rude, but is this a joke? Of course we were using it, until it broke. We know it hasn't worked for ages. We've been bumping the "bug" thread on a regular basis since that time.

I'm just really confused how a bug can be reported and re-reported, and then just because it's not fixed for months you seem to have concluded that nobody must have used it or wanted it. ???

Between this, and the fact that all my picture book covers are miniscule even though they're much larger in real life than my regular books, using LT has become steadily less enjoyable for me over the last year and a half or so. I feel churlish complaining because at the super low price of $25 for lifetime membership, I think of this as a free service, so I don't want to be too demanding. But I can't express enough how important these two issues (alpha tags option, and fixed height vs fixed width of covers) are to me.

27> Hopefully this new bug reporting system will help reverse the trend of bugs building up and eating old features. I think now that they're more in front of Tim's face in an organized fashion, it will help tremendously. I honestly don't think he had as good a handle on what all was wrong with the site as he thought he did. There were just too many bugs to keep in his head (or notebook, or text file, or whatever he was using). As evidence, I could point to all the ones he's fixed in the last few days. He's really done a great job at fixing some outstanding problems, some of which NEVER worked right and others which used to work right and then threw a rod.

Yes, please bring alphabetization back (at display level, and optional).

I have different sorts of tags labeled with a different pre-character (subjects/genre unlabeled, where I got the book with a !, why I don't have the book @ (@Borrowed, @Wishlist...), and so on. This is very useful in the Tags page, and used to be useful in the catalog as well - but now they appear in the order I put them (pretty much random as I think of them), which can be frustrating. I don't really care if it's alpha or reverse alpha, as long as they sort together. I don't sort on my tags list, so display level is fine - for those who do, or are willing to spend the time to manually sort their tags, it needs to be optional.

I have no idea why anyone would assume this previously optional feature, when brought back, would be anything other than optional. And yet...

30>

I didn't assume that. I thought (as I already said), because I hadn't known about the change between profile and power edit options, that it is what norabelle was requesting in message 18.

31> Okay, let me rephrase. I don't know why anyone would NOT assume the feature, when brought back, would act exactly like it did before. As in, optional.

I'm still hollering. Please can we have it back?

I was mucking around in my library today, and I was continually annoyed by having my tags in random order. I'd love to have this feature back...

So would I.

Indeed

HOLLERS VERY LOUDLY IN HOPES THAT SOMEONE WILL HEAR!

*ECHO ECHO ECHO!*

Uh, I mean, what lilithcat said.

I'm HOLLERING, too! I'm getting really fed up with my tags not being organized. I used to make it a point to enter tags alphabetically. Once this became a feature, I stopped doing that. Apparently, I shouldn't have. I rely on alphabetized tags to keep things organized. PLEASE bring this back!!

I would really love to have this feature back.

I'd still love to have this back...

Still wishing...

ABCEDFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Set back to Reopened. Please do not set to "Needs Discussion", as that will actually make this bug LOWER priority than it already is (hard to believe).

Of course, since the feature has been removed, it really shouldn't be considered a bug anymore at all. It's just a feature request now.

Strongly disagree.

So, what exactly is the bug? You said in the OP Either the feature should be fixed (preferable) or that no-longer-working option should be removed. It seems that the second one has happened.

Well, I was more talking about it being left as a Reopened bug in the sense of the bug reporting system. Tim specifically said he could bring it back of people hollered. People hollered. As such, I don't think it should be ND (especially considering it was never Tim that set it to ND).

So I guess it's a matter of semantics. I'm talking about bug in terms of "LT Bug Reports".

Of course, if Tim disagrees and wants all these people to re-post their hollers to an RSI that can then be ignored, he can always re-close it. ;)

Right, I'm talking about LT bug reports too. I don't think they should be used for non-bugs, even if Tim is inviting discussion about those issues here. It sets a bad precedent, though it certainly is tempting. If this one succeeds, maybe I'll start a bug about Tag Mirror being too resource-intensive ;)

It wasn't used for a non-bug. It was used for a bug. Then he applied a bug fix and directly asked for discussion of said fix.

I understand your concern, but I just think you're off base in this instance.

Well, he stated that he could bring it back easily "if people holler". I'm not sure that was an invitation to holler in this particular thread, especially since he simultaneously marked it as closed.

I guess it doesn't really matter, but it seems like a pretty slippery slope. The more feature requests get implemented via bug tracking threads, the more incentive there is to turn bug tracking threads into feature requests.

51> And when people hollered, he asked followup questions. In this thread. He didn't start a new one or ask someone to start a new one. Tim had opportunities over and over again to tell us how he wants us to use the bug reporting system, which is a system primarily designed to make working on bugs easier for him. In the end, that's what I base it on.

Like I said before, I understand your concern (and share it!). But I just think you're barking up the wrong tree on this thread.

>52 brightcopy: I'd be happy to use the bug tracking system as per Tim's instructions, except that he hasn't really given any. And LT staff often respond to feature requests/new user questions in the New Features group, which explicitly says not to post there, so I don't take that as an indication of what should be done.

Anyway, I'm not going to close this thread; I just think it should be closed. Maybe Tim will come along and advise one way or the other.

53> I'd be happy to use the bug tracking system as per Tim's instructions, except that he hasn't really given any.

And that's what I keep trying to get across. In the absence of any specific direction from him, I'm following his lead.

Although I disagree with the premise that we need reach some critical mass of "hollering" to have a basic feature restored, add mine to the list of names requesting this basic and useful feature working again.

Ditto ^55. I use a zillion tags and would really like them back in alpha order. Right now they're a mess.

>54 brightcopy: And my point is that when it comes to posting in the appropriate places, LT staff are not always a good example. It's easy to respond to a comment where it is, even if that's not the right place.

In the absence of specific direction, I think it's better to look at the underlying principles of the thing.

57> In the absence of specific direction, I think it's better to look at the underlying principles of the thing.

Which, as you've said, haven't been laid out. So now we're back to leading by example.

Which, as you've said, haven't been laid out

Logic and the meanings of words should be able to lead you at least part of the way to a set of, if not rules, then guidelines.

59> Which does no good, as the "words" haven't been written to divine the meaning of, unless you're talking about his examples. The only "words" he's written are in his examples. Which is what I've tried to follow, using logic and the meaning of those words.

QED

>60 brightcopy: Of course he's written words that we can divine the meaning of. The most telling are "bug tracking".

This is not a bug.
Therefore it should not be part of the bug tracking system.
QED.

Even if you want to stick with his "examples", you'll notice that he continued discussing the issue without reopening the bug. Members reopened it almost two months after his last post.

So what you guys are trying to do is push this up hot topics? I'm not sure I think that's the best thing to do, but I'll join in trying to get my tags back in some order again. Burn high, sweet topic, and carry the sweet smell of incense along with our petitions to those who sit on high and have the power to help lowly us.

Okay, for me to do this I need to figure out the consequences everywhere. (I really, really wish I had not introduced this feature because, as Jason Fried noted, you can add a feature but you can never take one away.)

Where do people care about this—just the display within your catalog's "tags" and "tags and comments" field?

you can add a feature but you can never take one away

So, what's the ETA for Tag Mirror? :D

Although I should note that in the polls, affinity was barely positive.

As for me, I only care about the tag field in catalog view.

#63: It makes it a lot easier if I can edit the tags knowing that if "American literature" isn't before "Canadian literature", it's not there.

Edit: I'd be happy with a button to alphabetize all my tags in Power Edit or something. Seems like that would consequence-low.

The tag field in catalogue view is where it matters for me. I use it for comparing tags on different books. It would be a bonus on the book details page, but that is more a matter of aesthetics than utility.

First priority would be catalogue view, second priority would be book details. The ideal world would be both places, as I would use alphabetical order in both views, but I realize that could be a tremendous pain and asking waaay too much. I'd be happy to get the feature back in any fashion, pretty much.

Ditto what 68 wrote.

I agree with #68.

Oh wait, I'm supposed to not talk about it because Zoe thinks you don't want to use bug tracking for discussion after the original bug that the bug report is about has been addressed, even if the discussion directly follows from it and you have specifically asked people a question and expect them to respond in this thread. Nevermind, then.

;)

>71 brightcopy: Wait, I think you've misunderstood my whole point. I don't care if people continue to talk in old bug threads. I just think the bug should remain set at fixed/closed rather than reopened/needs discussion.

72> Hmm. Somehow I must be misreading: Well, he stated that he could bring it back easily "if people holler". I'm not sure that was an invitation to holler in this particular thread, especially since he simultaneously marked it as closed.

Anyway, I don't really disagree on the status part. If you had actually said anything about the status rather than the commenting, I suppose the disagreement would have never started. As such, I'm setting the status to closed.

I only care about it in the catalog view, but would really, really, really like to have it back there.

>73 brightcopy: Well, remember that the whole discussion was provoked by this remark: Set back to Reopened. Please do not set to "Needs Discussion", as that will actually make this bug LOWER priority than it already is (hard to believe).

Anyway, I'm glad there's no real disagreement. Much time was apparently wasted in unnecessary debate, but such is life :)

72>

For what it's worth, I misunderstood you as well, in the same way -- that since this was closed and thus not considered a bug, you were saying we shouldn't talk about it on Bug Collectors. I do agree with you that it should remain closed.

>76 lorax: Thanks for mentioning that. Reading through, I can see where the discussion may have gone astray between messages 48 and 49. I guess the situation is complicated by the fact that all Bug Collectors threads are now tied to the Bug Tracking system.

I would like it in the catalog list view, because then I can easily compare like books (based on my own searches) and make sure I'm consistent in the tags across those books. If they go back to alpha order I'll be able to do this at a glance again.

Although I should note that in the polls, affinity was barely positive.

Yeah, affinity is an exception. It took so much effort to do.

68> As others have said - in the catalog display is the primary place I want to see it; in book details (and other places where a single book shows its tags, like Change Cover if you have more than one edition of the book) would be nice but not essential.

Thanks!

Ditto pretty much everyone. I especially want it back in the catalog view and on the book details page. It would be nice, but not necessary, on the add books page.

Is this going to come back?

Let's hope so.

Alphabetization started out as an option in Power Edit, right? I'd be fine seeing it implemented there again. Just, somewhere, please.

Did it? Anyway, I agree. Power edit would be fine too.

I'd be ok with an option in power edit as well, though I liked the way it was better.

I think the power edit one actually rearranged them, while the option in the profile only displayed them in order. If you're just looking, it makes absolutely no difference; if you're sorting by tags, Power Edit would change the sort (possibly to what you wanted, but possibly not). Of course, both were options and you could choose not to do them if you actually used sorting by tags and had a non-alphabetical order that worked for you.

I remember being somewhat disconcerted after it went to the profile option and I happened to sort by tags - and ended up with a sort that didn't relate to what I saw. It sorted by what was actually in there, which wasn't alphabetical. I don't normally sort by tags, and don't really care, but it was more than a little surprising the one time it did happen.

I thought the profile option would allow sorting in the library by alphabetized tags. But it's been a long, long time so I could be mistaken. I do remember that with the profile option, the tags were not in alphabetical order when you were editing them.

I liked the power edit option better, but I'd be content with either one right now.

I thought the profile option would allow sorting in the library by alphabetized tags.

Nope, display only. I complained about it at the time but Tim didn't think the effort to make sort work was worth it.

Just shows you how long it's been since this was working ;-)

bump

Any status on this issue? Sorry if I'm missing something but I am having trouble searching "Talk" effectively.

I would really love to know if it's possible to have this feature back. I don't understand *why* it was removed in the first place, when so many people used it (as evidenced by the multiple bug threads back when it wasn't working). I never used it because I didn't have as many tags back then, but *now* it's something I would definately like!

93> It went away because Tim completely changed the way that tags are represented internally in LT. I presume that it would take considerable work to bring it back or Tim would have done it already.

Well, since he said "(in such a way it can be added back easily if people holler.)" I figured he was at least *open* to bringing it back. And msg 63 made it sound like he was thinking about it. Which is why I'd like to know if it's still possible for it to return.

Indeed. An update would be nice.

My two biggest LT laments are the lack of alphabetizing in the tags, and the now fixed-width covers. I would give a lot to have fixed-height covers back! What makes it worse is that we had both these things and now they've been gone for ages, and have been left in limbo.

reviving this thread since i'd sure like to see this resolved and the feature back in action.

Me, too. I miss it.

Immensely.

I miss it and I never even had it.

I still miss this feature. :(

I didn't realize it got closed as a bug -- just reopened it. I have so many tags on some books that the lack of this previous feature is a major inconvenience in my use of LibraryThing. I don't know enough about complex coding, but in comparison to many other complex features that LT has, surely this is one of the simpler ones and could be turned back on?

While I understand the desire to have this feature, a lack of a feature isn't a bug. However, to keep it on my radar I'll put it under deferred.

Actually it's a desire to have *back* a feature that was working perfectly fine, not just a desire to have some random feature that was never here in the first place. And since I have no idea if it just stopped working and you haven't fixed it yet, or if you deliberately turned it off for some reason, there was no way for me to know whether it was or wasn't a bug in your eyes. If you could explain which of those it was (stopped working, or turned off and why), I suspect it would go a long way towards making us feel better about it. If I missed that explanation, I apologize.

Edited to add: Yes, my apologies -- early in this thread, you say "Feature removed (in such a way it can be added back easily if people holler.)" Then lots of people hollored.

Can you please tell us why it was turned off, and whether you're actually considering ever turning it on again?

At one point in time Tim completely rewrote how tagging works under the surface and at that time this feature wasn't reimplemented using the new system. I presume that it's a question of whether the effort is worth the usage of the feature.

Thanks, jjwilson61 -- I appreciate the extra info.

At this point, I mainly wish I knew how many people "hollering" (Tim's word) he considers to be significant -- to me it looks like we have many people in this thread expressing their desire to have this feature back, but I have no idea if Tim thinks of this as enough people to make it worth his trouble. It's the same thing with the cover issue of fixed height versus fixed width -- there's never a clear indication of whether there is an intention to eventually address the issue.

I've pretty much given up hope on both, which is too bad because they're both super-important to me, and I use LT all the time.

However, to keep it on my radar I'll put it under deferred.

Why don't you make an RSI version of the bug tracker? Or should I list all my pet improvements as bugs to keep them on your radar too?

#109 by @_Zoe_> Come on Zoe, be fair. This isn't a "pet improvement". It's a part of the website that stopped working. That's a whole lot closer to a bug than a feature improvement. (And yes, I think Tim's wrong on this breakage being a "lack of feature". That's such an oversimplification as to lose touch with reality.)

Well, if this removal of a feature is a bug, then I'm bugging the non-functionality of Tag Watch.

#111 by @lorax> I didn't say it's a bug. I said it's CLOSER to a bug. People keep trying to oversimplify.

> 111: Amen to that - I really, really, really want tag watch back.

But that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate alphabetical sorting of my tags - for any given work. And I would dearly love to have it back.

And FWIW, the reason this is a bug report is that there was still the option to turn on the sorting, it just didn't do anything.

Had Tim been the one to post elsewhere that he was turning off the feature and removing the option, the discussion would have started elsewhere. Until we can move threads (never), I see no point in trying to make everyone stop posting here and telling them all to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, people will get bent out of shape about it being in the "wrong" place.

There's nothing to prevent discussion in a closed bug thread.

I have nothing against this being deferred per se, except it's troubling that that's necessary in order to keep something on the radar. Plenty of other features (TagWatch, CR/Wishlisted on work pages, weighted sort of tag pages) have also disappeared. Those have just as much claim to being deferred bugs. I don't see what's wrong with devising a proper system to deal with them, or with using this system in other cases if that's the way Tim prefers to go.

I don't particularly care where we get to "whine" about these things, just as long as they somehow stay on the radar.

The alphabetical reordering of tags would be a great help, also for tag translation.

chiming in with my own "please."

Bump.

Bump bump.

Bumpity-bump.

so, it is clear that scores of dedicated users have been asking, pleading, and "hollering" (Tim's word) for two years to have this feature back as an option. Let me add my voice to the chorus. The reason I haven't chimed in before is because, as is so often the case, the requests/ recommendations/ pleas have been falling on deaf ears.

As one respondent said

"I don't mean to be rude, but is this a joke? Of course we were using it, until it broke. We know it hasn't worked for ages. We've been bumping the "bug" thread on a regular basis since that time.

I'm just really confused how a bug can be reported and re-reported, and then just because it's not fixed for months you seem to have concluded that nobody must have used it or wanted it. ???

I swear I posted on another thread about this but yeah, I was just trying to check something in my library today and got annoyed all over again. I would like the Power Edit option back.

Bump bump bump.

We've hollered for over two years! Can we get this back?

Perhaps we are not hollering loudly enough? ;)

We've been hollering here, too : http://www.librarything.com/topic/140896

The feature seems to have come back! But I don't see the checkbox - those who use order of tags, better check your catalogs.

Sorry - turns out it was omargosh's Greasemonkey script. Which does the same thing, but isn't an LT feature.

Habitual reminder that when this existed IT WAS OPTIONAL. I have a specific and non-alphabetical order for my tags and do not want it messed with.

Closing. Not a bug (at this point), and confirmed by Tim that we're not bringing this back any time soon.

that figures.

Just another site improvement that many want but that somehow is ignored.

>132 danielx:

You may want to repost this as a site improvement request, then, rather than complaining on a bug that was closed as not-a-bug almost six months ago.

>132 danielx: and >133 lorax: I can certainly appreciate the desire for this feature, and while you're certainly welcome to create an RSI post for it, I must say it's not likely to see traction from the admin side. As mentioned in my note last year >131 lorannen: Tim has confirmed that this is not on our to-do list.

Part of the reason being: it would require us un-/redoing a lot of the work that went into autocomplete for tags, which is complicated stuff.