[detritus]

When I sort Books by creator, it uses last name. When I sort Music by creator it uses first name. How come?

-Josh

[Delicious Monster]

Most books are authored by a person. Most people expect people's names to be sorted by last name. Most last names are the last word in the name. Hence, Delicious Library sorts books by the last word in Creator.

Music, on the other hand, is as often as not authored by a band, which people expect to be sorted by the first word. Since iTunes solves this problem by ignoring it and sorting by first word, we do too.

[danmc]

I think there needs to be an option for those of us who care about creator sort order to be able to indicate that a record is an artist (last name, first name) instead of a group. I have a large CD collection that is already ordered in this way and I want to use DL to catalog and mirror that order. The iTunes comparision does not hold that much water because iTunes manages digital files and DL is managing physical assets.

If I could do it in Filemaker or AppleWorks it cnalt be that difficult for you to do it in DL. Especially if it is an option rather than the default behavior.

Just a request but I think it would be an improvement for those of us with lots of CDs.

If DL started managing digital assets as well I would not agrue with that!

Thanks

[weldon]

A custom sort order would be a nice feature. For example, I really like having books and albums sorted by author/artist and then by release date. For DVD's, I'd like then to be alphabetical by title except for sequels, which I would want to follow the first movie in a series by release date. But then Star Wars should start with Episode 1 and end with Episode 6.

There isn't one single way to fix sorting, so a field for custom sort order would be the most flexible solution.

[Delicious Monster]

Whether your music asset is physical or digital, the problem of differentiating bands and artists is the same. Delicious Library was envisioned as the physical analog to iTunes, so it only makes sense the sorting be analogous. Furthermore, consistency between applications is part of what makes the Mac feel so intuitive and integrated.

I don't disagree that there's a better way to be found, and I actually think a checkbox for this would be a good thing, but if there's anything I've learned in this business, it's that everybody has a checkbox. Unfortunately, when everyone gets their one checkbox, you end up with thousands of checkboxes covering every conceivable option.

They have a whole operating system like this, and if you've never suffered through it, let me tell you: hell is checkboxes. "It just works" is dependent on finding a single solution that works for 80% of the population and throwing away the other options.

I'm not saying this is the end of the conversation on sorting. Obviously we've been shouted down on design decisions before (such as iTunes integration), but just realize it's never as easy as just adding a checkbox.

Speaking of sorting, the current cascade is creator-series-number-title, so if you have your Star Wars labeled right, they will sort this way.

Creator-release date is the one place the cascade breaks down. We may have to just add it as another sort option.

[weldon]

I just tried the series and series number fields for my Star Trek DVD's. The titles are all slightly different (eg. Star Trek 1 - The Motion Picture, Star Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn, Star Trek Generations) They still sort in a weird fashion. What should I do to get the DVD's in the correct series order?

[Delicious Monster]

Select all your Star Trek movies at once, and set the series name to something like "Star Trek." It's important the series name be the same for all members of the series. Then fill in the series numbers.

Mind you, sorting by title is still going to sort by title proper, but sorting by series, or creator, will honor the series order.

[gambosity]

Originally Posted by detritus 

When I sort Books by creator, it uses last name. When I sort Music by creator it uses first name. How come?

-Josh

I have the exact same complaint. I don't want to look on my shelf for a CD by Don Henley under "Don".
I got around this by manually entering solo artist names in reverse, ie, Taylor James.
Not elegant, but it works.

[dmaoliver]

Originally Posted by Delicious Monster 

Music, on the other hand, is as often as not authored by a band, which people expect to be sorted by the first word. Since iTunes solves this problem by ignoring it and sorting by first word, we do too.

Since iTunes has now added sort fields, can we expect similar functionality in a future version of DM?

[Delicious Monster]

I don't know. That interface seems kind of inelegant, like they just decided to give up. I feel like there has to be a better way. Unfortunately I've already used my allotment of time this month for talking about the sorting problem.

[hilkemann0138]

When I sort by creator in books it never really sorts them alphabetically, just occassionaly. Anyone else having this problem?

[Delicious Monster]

It sorts them occasionally? As in, it sorts them by the contents of the occasion field? Or it only sorts them every nth time?

I assure you that when you sort by creator, you sort by the last word, then the series, then the number in series, then title, then who knows, maybe occasion.

Are you sure these are actual books and not just failed lookups? Do they also not have covers?

[dmaoliver]

DM,

Are you here to answer questions, or to be a smartass? Just curious...

[Delicious Monster]

I'm here to answer questions. I was born a smartass.

Although, I think in this thread, you might be misinterpreting me.

In reference to your own question, when I say I'm out of time for talking about the sorting problem, I mean it's one of my pet problems, so I am constantly talking to Wil and Lucas about it, and eventually they get tired of it, so I have to not bring it up again for a while, lest they never fix it simply out of spite.

In reference to the most recent question, mine is a serious question. Some people will create an item and either not ever look it up, or look it up and leave it failed. Since it has a title and creator, they figure it's good enough.

It's not. You have to hit the "enter details" button, even if you don't enter any more details, or it won't be a real item so it won't sort or accept a cover image.

[dmaoliver]

DM,

Your response to the original post seems to defer to iTunes:

Since iTunes solves this problem by ignoring it and sorting by first word, we do too.

Given this, I thought it was fair to bring up the fact that iTunes now offers a way for those of us who care to set our own sort order for the Artist field. Especially because in a later post, you also said:

Delicious Library was envisioned as the physical analog to iTunes, so it only makes sense the sorting be analogous. Furthermore, consistency between applications is part of what makes the Mac feel so intuitive and integrated.

But later you completely write off the way iTunes does things:

That interface seems kind of inelegant, like they just decided to give up. I feel like there has to be a better way.

My guess is that there are probably a substantial number of DL users out here who would like the flexibility to set the sort order differently for the Artist name when it's a person rather than a group; and don't particularly care if it's somewhat inelegant. Is there any chance DL will implement an option that will allow us to do this? Users who don't care can use the default behavior.

BTW, my smartass reference was to the way you parsed hilkemann0138's use of the phrase "just occassionally." (sic)

[Delicious Monster]

I can see how it can seem disingenuous to point to iTunes as an example when it suits me, then dismiss it when it doesn't. Let me elucidate you on my thought process, which will, I pray, explain to your satisfaction this apparent discrepancy.

First, the problem of sorting is hard. It goes beyond first names and last names and band names. Consider, for example, the fact a computer cannot discern the phonemes of written Japanese. It's like the number sorting problem (1, 10, 2) except for your entire language!

Second, the entire idea behind Delicious Library is not making you type. The point at which our solution is to make you type is the point at which we've departed from what makes our program great.

Third, in the time since Delicious Library was first released (almost three years ago now!) we've thought a lot about this problem and we've come up with some solutions that even we don't think are perfect, yet they are a heck of lot more elegant than what iTunes eventually came up with.

Fourth, iTunes is at version 7, while we're about to come out with version 2. If Delicious Library 7 hasn't addressed this issue, I'll put a sponge cake on my head and eat my hat.

Finally, our details pane is different than iTunes, a fact that is even more true in Delicious Library 2. In other words, their solution, even if it really is the only way, is just not a very good fit.

The upshot of all this is I obsess about this problem more than you would believe or is healthy. I talk about this problem constantly, not only to my mates at the Monster, but also to other developers.

I have some ideas, but at the end of the day, they require architecture, and architecture is beyond what we should be working on two months before release. It's simply going to have to wait.

All that being said, I'm not saying you should shut up about this. It's exactly this kind of saber rattling that leads to things like our kick-ass iTunes integration in Delicious Library 2, something that we not only didn't plan, but that was antithetical to the very idea of Delicious Library.

I argue with you not because I don't care, but because I do.

[Marc Max]

This is my first posting to this site. First of all, I want to thank Delicious Monster for their sparkling piece of software.

I also want to thank dmaoliver for bringing to my attention iTunes' new sort field function. Immediately upon reading this thread I went and reordered my iTunes collection by last name. I feel so much better now! I feel... cleaner.

Even though iTunes users have had to live with it for some time, the plain truth is that sorting by artists' first names is retarded. There's a reason elementary school teachers taught us to alphabetize by last name. It makes sense.

It's better when computers adapt to us, rather than forcing us to adapt to them. Remember when we had to type ridiculous things like LOAD and RUN and EXE and whatever other crap to get them to work? We had to learn to speak the computer's language. The Mac changed that. Apple decided it would be better to make computers that speak OUR language.

I appreciate DM's point that sorting is hard. I'm sure that when they created iTunes, the folks at Apple saw first-name sorting as inelegant but inescapable. It's too difficult a problem for the software to correct.

Now they've come around to giving the user the option of fixing the problem. True, extra steps are involved; but the people who care enough about correct alpabetization aren't going to mind taking those extra steps. Those who aren't bothered by seeing Don Henley next to Don McLean don't have to do anything at all. Nothing need change for them if Delicious Library were to follow Apple's lead and enable last-name sorting; they'd catalog their CDs the normal way and say, "Honey, look, the whatchamahoosie scanned all our Maroon 5 CDs! I think it used lasers!" And they'd be done.

Those of us who care about correct alphabetizing, who may have large collections which have always been correctly alphabetized, are happier when we can put things right. It's easier to look up CDs that are sorted the way they always have been, the sensible way, rather than remembering that Alasdair Roberts is now under A.

I'm hoping that with iTunes' new sort function, retarded alphabetizing will become a thing of the past. They've solved the problem. They're leading the way.

[Delicious Monster]

Although, you know, for the Address Book on iPhone I went for first name sorting. Even though I know it's "wrong," I actually like it better. I think of people as Bob Smith, not as Smith Bob, so it's more natural to just go with the name in order. I don't know where the idea came along that people had to be sorted by last name.

Now bear in mind, I'm not saying that means we should never allow last name artist sorting in Delicious Library or some kind of generic sorting solution in general. I'm just saying your restatement that computers should adapt to humans makes me thing. Humans need to adapt as humans too.

I think about so many things the Mac does, not just for users, but on a programming side. A lot of it goes against the norm. Apple's not afraid to say yeah I know everyone does it that way but is that really the best way? The iPhone is also a good example of this.

Anyway, just two more pennies on the pile.

[weldon]

I definitely understand the obsession with being concerned about having every little detail correct in your cataloging app. Still, I can't help but notice that the record store sorts everything by first name as if the artist name is the same as a band name. I decided to let iTunes do the same.

[Marc Max]

Weldon--that's an interesting record store. I don't think I've ever seen that in all my years of bin-scrounging. Maybe first-name sorting is catching on?

DM--I'm with you on first-name sorting in an address book. That's how I have my cell phone contacts. It definitely makes more sense in that context, because we're on a first-name basis with our friends and family.

I think the last-name sorting convention took root because of an important difference between first and last names: In general, the number of first names is far fewer than the number of last names. According to Wikipedia, "Surnames have arisen in cultures with large, concentrated populations where single names for individuals become insufficient to uniquely identify them." Last names do a much better job of uniquely identifying people than first names.

So, for example, the names Dylan, Geldof, Marley, Mould, Seger, Weir, and Wills do a better job of identifying artists than the name "Bob" (I know, the surname "Smith" might refer to Bessie, Elliott, Kendra, Mark E., Patti, Will, and The Smiths, but that's an exception that proves the rule).

[Delicious Monster]

I think in academia, or in a "sort all the world's media" type situation, that might be true, but when it comes to music I think people's names are taken as they are. I don't think of Bob Dylan as Bob or Dylan. I think of him as Bob Dylan. Similarly Billy Joel, Mariah Carey, Stevie Nicks; the list goes on.

Moreover, there are bands whose names sound like people's name. Many people would be confused to find Mazzy Star under M, since they assume Mazzy Star is the female singer, Hope Sandoval.

With first name sorting, it doesn't matter, nor is there a question where to sort Dave Matthews Band or George Clinton and the P-Funk All-Stars?