Bug 4320 - Incorrect sorting: <disc><track><title> in menu item "Songs"
: Incorrect sorting: <disc><track><title> in menu item "Songs"
Status: NEW
Product: Logitech Media Server
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Database
: 6.5.0
: PC Windows XP
: -- enhancement (vote)
: Future
Assigned To: Unassigned bug - please assign me!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-10-06 12:43 UTC by P48M6zWfHaFM
Modified: 2011-11-06 23:22 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description P48M6zWfHaFM 2006-10-06 12:43:58 UTC
I have activated the menu item "Songs" from the menu "Home / Player Settings / Menus". The menu item is inactive by default.

Entering the Songs menu, songs are sorted on <track><title> (or possibly by <filename>, which happens to be "<track> <title>.flac" on my system). The correct behaviour, in my opinon, would be to sort on <title><album><artist> or <title><artist><album>. The <track> number is irrelevant.

In my opinion, sorting on song titles regardless of album/artist would be quite useful. It gives a different viewpoint for browsing, than what the "Search/Songs" provides. Each useful in separate situations.
Comment 1 P48M6zWfHaFM 2006-10-06 14:50:29 UTC
The original description is not fully correct. To be more precise:

Songs are sorted on <disc><track><title> (or possibly by <filename>, which happens to be "<disc>-<track> <title>.flac" on my system). The correct behaviour, in my opinon, would be to sort on <title><album><artist> or
<title><artist><album>. The <disc> and <track> numbers are irrelevant.
Comment 2 KDF 2006-10-06 21:11:31 UTC
a track list, as defined in the schema is ordered by:
album.titlesort,me.disc,me.tracknum,me.titlesort

Listing the entire library as a list of tracks isn't really in the design, but is there due to legacy (very old legacy) 
and the fact that it's a dead simple hierarchy.  It isn't a menu item by default for a reason.

sounds like this is matching the design. but that's just my 2cents as input from the code.  
Comment 3 P48M6zWfHaFM 2006-10-07 01:26:33 UTC
That's too bad.

In my opinion, track listing ordering should depend on browse mode:

1) When displaying tracks from one SINGLE album, you want to see the tracks in track order, not titles alphabetically.
   => Ordering should be: disc, tracknum

2) When displaying tracks from MULTIPLE albums (via Browse>Albums>All Songs, or via menu item Songs), you want to see the tracks alphabetically, regardless of disc and track number.
   => Ordering should be: title, artist, album
Comment 4 KDF 2006-10-07 11:18:35 UTC
no. it's good.  it means things are working as designs.
it is also good as an enhancement becuase that is the type of request where you make your point about why the current design shouldd change. simple = stable.  reading minds, and altering behaviour based on subtle differences of opinion and even what may appear to be simple state dependant variable should be considered carefully.

consider it a good thing.
Comment 5 Alan Young 2011-11-06 23:22:20 UTC
Unassigned bugs cannot have a priority.