Bug 6710 - (Optionally) sort lists in OPAC pull down alphabetically instead of ordering by last changed
Summary: (Optionally) sort lists in OPAC pull down alphabetically instead of ordering ...
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Lists (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Galen Charlton
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-08-11 16:56 UTC by Nicole C. Engard
Modified: 2023-12-28 20:42 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Nicole C. Engard 2011-08-11 16:56:54 UTC
When you click on the button for lists on the OPAC and the pull down menu on the search results in the staff and opac it would be great if those lists were listed in alphabetical order by title of list.

Right now it seems kind of random .. maybe the order in which the lists were created?
Comment 1 Owen Leonard 2011-11-11 17:15:47 UTC
The lists that display in those instances are generated by the GetRecentShelves subroutine which retrieves (usually 10) shelve ordered by the date last modified:

    my $query = 'SELECT * FROM virtualshelves';
    $query .= $selection;
    $query .= ' ORDER BY lastmodified DESC';
    if ($row_count){
	$query .= ' LIMIT ?';

So the top of the list should be the most recently changed.

Perhaps it would be better to grab the last 10 most recently changed and reorder the resulting set by title?
Comment 2 Nicole C. Engard 2011-11-11 18:14:59 UTC
But why the most recently changed? Why not just a alphabetical list? Patrons don't understand why a list starting with A isn't showing with the other lists starting with A ... and neither do the librarians.
Comment 3 Owen Leonard 2011-11-11 19:16:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> But why the most recently changed? Why not just a alphabetical list?

Because it's too unwieldy and resource-intensive to retrieve all lists on every page
Comment 4 Nicole C. Engard 2011-11-11 19:51:37 UTC
Then I'd say the first 10 alphabetical lists - but it's not just up to me.

Nicole
Comment 5 Owen Leonard 2011-11-11 20:06:24 UTC
An argument for leaving it as the 10 most recently modified: If your library has lots of public lists and uses the public lists to provide patrons with frequently-updated information it makes sense for them to be able to see freshly-updated lists. For instance, if a list was used as a bibliography on a popular topic, someone might be happy to know that something new had been added to it.
Comment 6 David Cook 2022-12-05 05:27:02 UTC
Closing this one due to age and I think Owen's argument is convincing