Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

+3 votes

Related to this question, the /Maps/MapMatrix result still has a combined D/T column, making it impossible to sort by Terrain first, then Difficulty.

Can this please be solved in a short timeframe, if the move to another table renderer is a long-term plan?

in Feature requests by mirabilos (2.7k points)

1 Answer

+1 vote
If you want to avoid high terrain geocaches, you can filter them when doing the search.
by magma1447 (Admin) (225k points)
OK, that's a workaround. But what if I just want the list sorted accordingly? I mean, some other tables have them split…

As explanation: I just want the “outer” sort to be the thing that affects me more. I have a harder time increasing the T rating than the D rating, personally, so I prefer for T to be the “outer” sort/loop, and “D” to be the “inner”, as that’s the order I use when tackling them.
It was a design decision to join them, since one usually wants to sort them both. We believe the current design still fits more users than splitting them. Though we may be wrong of course.
But it’s not possible to sort them both!

It’s only possible to sort by D ASC, T ASC and D DESC, T DESC, but not for example by T ASC, D ASC, or even mixing ASC and DESC.

The /Tools/MapHiddenMonth table, on the contrary, allows that, because of the Shift-click method I described in:
Yes, I understand. But the multi-column-sort is too complex for most users. And we have assumed that the most common case is just to sort them so that they are in order of D and T.

I use the tool fairly often, and I can't remember feeling that I wanted to sort them individually. But I understand that different users will wish different things.

But yes, with the current solution, it's impossible to sort by T. I guess a workaround could be to split them up, and have a default sort on D+T. Then if users can't figure out how to sort on two columns, they can just reload the page (or don't change the sort).

Does that sound reasonable?
Thanks, this does sound reasonable. Maybe add a tooltip or a textual paragraph somewhere on the page explaining the shift-click thing then, for those who wonder how to get back to the default sorting (or even extend it to three columns, or something).

I think most people, even when they wish to use a T-first sorting, just see it’s not possible and continue on living, instead of putting up a feature request and nagging the site admin, as I do ;-) Maybe that’s why you think it’s the common case.

I do agree that a D ASC, T ASC sorting should be the default.
Might it be possible to have a user option in their account settings that by default was as now. D/T combined but when unticked showed D & T as two separate columns. Then for vast majority of users they keep it as is and for those that want to sort by T (myself included as I physically struggle to do T4.5 or T5) would be able to .

Programatically its a small tweak to the query/display output based on a user setting. So not a huge change.
Hey ShammyLevva, sorta good idea.

How about a preference “user mode” (“basic” or “advanced”) which can act as a toggle for this and, possibly, later, others, with “advanced” unveiling the full power of the site (still with sensible defaults) and “basic” hiding the more complex and/or complicated things?
Possibly, however thats a bit of a sledgehammer, it is entirely possible that a user might want some "advanced" features on and some off, having only a single option for "advanced" or "basic" then severely ties down what the user can customise.