Difference between revisions of "Talk:Suggestions"
(Sorting for Search in Database) |
(→Sorting for Search in Database) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Find which players have moons | * Find which players have moons | ||
* Find players who have espionage reports already | * Find players who have espionage reports already | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''We already have these, if I understood your suggestion.<br>''' | ||
| + | '''When you search for a player or alliance, it is automatically listed in order of systems.<br>''' | ||
| + | '''You can click the "Only Planets with moon" bubble and it will only show moons.<br>''' | ||
| + | '''You can click the "Only Planets with reports" bubble and it will only show planets with espionage reports.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''--[[User:Hunter0293|Hunter0293]] 19:06, 27 March 2008 (CET)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, I understand that these options are already there to filter the results, however I would like the ability to actually display the results in order - so if you were to click on the header "player name" it would sort the results by the player name, a second click could then go on to reverse the order. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think my initial examples could have been better/clearer. Let's give an example of what I believe would be a typical search scenario. | ||
| + | |||
| + | One of your players keeps getting attacked by an alliance, you want to find out where the alliance is so you search for the alliance (without filters as mentioned above). The list returns quite a large number of hits which are by default ordered by coordinates. To mount or coordinate a decent attack on targeted players you would then want to narrow it down by player - so rather than go back and search you could sort the results by "player name". Alternatively you might want to see what espionage reports were available for the alliance as a whole - so if you could sort on that column you find out much more quickly than having to go back through the search, expand the options and select the relevant filters, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Would this be possible to implement? | ||
Latest revision as of 21:22, 27 March 2008
Please suggest things here.
Sorting for Search in Database
I would really like to see a way to sort the returned searches by the headers, for example you could then:
- View the planets in order of system to see who was closest to each other
- Find which players have moons
- Find players who have espionage reports already
We already have these, if I understood your suggestion.
When you search for a player or alliance, it is automatically listed in order of systems.
You can click the "Only Planets with moon" bubble and it will only show moons.
You can click the "Only Planets with reports" bubble and it will only show planets with espionage reports.
--Hunter0293 19:06, 27 March 2008 (CET)
Yes, I understand that these options are already there to filter the results, however I would like the ability to actually display the results in order - so if you were to click on the header "player name" it would sort the results by the player name, a second click could then go on to reverse the order.
I think my initial examples could have been better/clearer. Let's give an example of what I believe would be a typical search scenario.
One of your players keeps getting attacked by an alliance, you want to find out where the alliance is so you search for the alliance (without filters as mentioned above). The list returns quite a large number of hits which are by default ordered by coordinates. To mount or coordinate a decent attack on targeted players you would then want to narrow it down by player - so rather than go back and search you could sort the results by "player name". Alternatively you might want to see what espionage reports were available for the alliance as a whole - so if you could sort on that column you find out much more quickly than having to go back through the search, expand the options and select the relevant filters, etc.
Would this be possible to implement?
