#108: Citation Search Sorting - Rewrite search on citation search
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: tbrooks | Owner: simko
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone: v1.0
Component: WebSearch | Version:
Resolution: fixed | Keywords: inspire UI Oct
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Comment (by simko):
BTW, I have just deployed a hot-fix on [[http://inspirebeta.net/]] so that
you may want to reply back to the concerned users that this is now fixed.
One thing we may want to touch base upon is what the default ranking
proposed to the users for these `Cited by 123 records' links should be. I
have kept the default ranking to be by citation counts: this seems to be
very natural to me, since we are in the citation network browsing context,
as it were. (BTW Google Scholar does it this way too.) But you mention
that people may expect to see the date sort perhaps here as well? Well, I
wouldn't, personally, but we can muse about whether this is a proper
default.
So, currently, in order to have a date sort of the citation search coming
from `Cited by 123 records' links, people will have to deselect the rank-
by option an select sort-by option to what they like (latest first, year,
title, etc). The currently separated sort-by vs rank-by selection boxen
is not very user-friendly design in my eyes, but this topic is addressed
elsewhere, in the common sorting/ranking buckets branch (which is
forthcoming). I think it is a rather rare need that people would want to
sort by citation count first and then have all the liberties to choose
some sub-sorting for records having the same citation counts, such as
title or year. (It would not even work well right now.) I think we can
kill the two box dichotomy and offer a single box only one, with options
like "Most cited", "Most recent", "Sort by title A-Z", "Most downloaded"
(on sites that would want that) and so on, as we mused about elsewhere.
Here, if we want, we could offer some pre-defined secondary sub-sort order
for the citation count, such as by year, if we consider it useful. That
would be common to all users though. But I think it should not be
necessary to let individual users use any logical field or physical MARC
tag for sub-sorting on this level.
--
Ticket URL: <http://invenio-software.org/ticket/108#comment:6>
Invenio <http://invenio-software.org>
