Grouping dates by "first letter"

[jackie_w]

Hi Charles,

Please would you consider the following. Absolutely no rush if it's too late for this development cycle.

For the 'Date published' field if you group-by-first-letters it is equivalent to grouping by millennium which probably isn't very meaningful for most book collections, or is it ? Would you consider making it mean group by decade instead (e.g. 1960-69, 1970-79 etc.) In other words, something like you did for the Pages and Words custom columns.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

Hi Charles,

Please would you consider the following. Absolutely no rush if it's too late for this development cycle.

For the 'Date published' field if you group-by-first-letters it is equivalent to grouping by millennium which probably isn't very meaningful for most book collections, or is it ? Would you consider making it mean group by decade instead (e.g. 1960-69, 1970-79 etc.) In other words, something like you did for the Pages and Words custom columns.

Moderator Notice
Discussion moved to its own thread.

[chaley]

@jackie_w: sure. I imagine that there are cases where millenium makes the most sense, but I suspect they are few and far between.

The question is whether or not to really do something like the numbers, that is use different partitioning depending on the value. Dates can run from 01/01/0101 to far in the future. My suspicion, dealing with books, is that the dates around "today" are of more interest than, for example, 1729 or 2350. Perhaps something like:

• Group by decade for 50 years in the past (future), rounded down (up) to the century.
• Group my century to the nearest larger/smaller millenium.
• Group what is left by millennium

Assuming today as the reference date, we would see:

• 1/1/0101 to 31/12/999 ==> 0000-0999
• 1/1/1000 to 31/12/1889 ==> group by century (1000-1099, 1100-1199, ..., 1800-1899)
• 1/1/1900 to 31/12.2099 ==> group by decade (1900-1909, 1910-1919, ..., 2090-1099)
• 1/1/2100 to 31/12/2199 ==> group by century (2100-2199, 2200-2299, ..., 2900-2999)
• 1/1/3000 to whatever ==> group my millennium (3000-3999, 4000-4999, ...)

The leading zeros won't be displayed on the first range.

The "50" is arbitrary, defining the block of years centered on "today" where "first letters" are decades. Any multiple of 10 will work. I think it should be smaller than 100, but am willing to argue.

And yes, I know that a millennium runs from 1001 to 2000 not 1000 to 1999, but the calculations are easier in the second case. It might also be visually easier to use.

Thoughts?

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by chaley

My suspicion, dealing with books, is that the dates around "today" are of more interest...

Yes, personally I would agree with that but other opinions would be helpful.

Originally Posted by chaley

• Group by decade for 50 years in the past (future), rounded down (up) to the century.
• Group my century to the nearest larger/smaller millenium.
• Group what is left by millennium

Assuming today as the reference date, we would see:

• 1/1/0101 to 31/12/999 ==> 0000-0999
• 1/1/1000 to 31/12/1989 ==> group by century (1000-1099, 1100-1199, ..., 1800-1899)
• 1/1/1900 to 31/12.2099 ==> group by decade (1900-1909, 1910-1919, ..., 2090-1099)
• 1/1/2100 to 31/12/2199 ==> group by century (2100-2199, 2200-2299, ..., 2900-2999)
• 1/1/3000 to whatever ==> group my millennium (3000-3999, 4000-4999, ...)

The leading zeros won't be displayed on the first range.

Did you mean
[*]1/1/1000 to 31/12/1899 ==> group by century (1000-1099, 1100-1199, ..., 1800-1899)
[*]1/1/1900 to 31/12.2099 ==> group by decade (1900-1909, 1910-1919, ..., 2090-2099)

I'm not sure I understand the concept of a 'Date published' value which is 'greater than current date', but apart from that it sounds like a reasonable start point for discussion. Personally I'd definitely like all books from 1900-onwards to be available 'by decade'. I'm OK with pre-1900 being 'by century' but those who read a lot of 19th-century Classics may feel more strongly about this. I also have to confess I've no idea what History buffs who read B.C. texts currently do with 'Date published'.

Originally Posted by chaley

And yes, I know that a millennium runs from 1001 to 2000 not 1000 to 1999, but the calculations are easier in the second case. It might also be visually easier to use.

I have a strong personal preference for 1800-1899, 1960-69 etc., even if that might make others consider me an uneducated total Philistine

... and finally, whatever I say now I can't promise I won't have changed my mind completely by the time the books in 3000 A.D. are published

[chaley]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

I'm not sure I understand the concept of a 'Date published' value which is 'greater than current date', but apart from that it sounds like a reasonable start point for discussion.

This change would affect all date types, not just date published.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by chaley

This change would affect all date types, not just date published.

Oh, right. I thought I was missing out on some great new idea

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

I have a strong personal preference for 1800-1899, 1960-69 etc., even if that might make others consider me an uneducated total Philistine

Not a Philistine at all. It simply depends what you want to use the ranges for. Eg, the 20th century ran from 1901 to 2000 (that's a matter of definition, not opinion), but it's far more common to speak of "the 1970s" (1970 to 1979) than of "the 8th decade of the 20th century" (1971 to 1980).

[chaley]

Upon reflection, my idea was flawed. It makes no sense to compute ranges based upon "today" because the previously-computed ranges would be based on some other "today". This would (could) make a mishmash of dates.

Instead I have chosen arbitrary groupings.

• Below 1000 is shown in the 0000-0999 group
• From 1000 to 1899 is shown in a group defined by its century
• From 1900 to 2099 is shown in a group defined by its decade
• From 2100 to 2199 is shown by century
• From 3000 on is shown by millennium.

An example is attached.

[jackie_w]

I'd be very happy with this if you decide to add it. Although it doesn't seem to be generating much interest from others, so far, I think it offers more meaningful info than the current 'by millennium' situation.

[chaley]

@jackie_w: once you install the latest CC release, in order to see the date partitions you must rebuild the grouping information. The easiest/quickest way to do that is to go to Settings / Grouping Drawer / Group/sort on custom columns then uncheck something (anything), tap OK, go back into the dialog, check what you unchecked, then OK. At this point CC will do a complete rebuild. You can "Back" out of Settings then wait for the process to finish (the icon in the notification area goes away and Grouping becomes enabled again).

[jackie_w]

After the group rebuilding process, 'Date published' seems to partition splendidly. Thank you My earliest book is 1853 so I don't have extensive testing of 'by century' and none at all of pre-1000

I'm not sure I would have known to do the group rebuilding if you hadn't warned me. So maybe a note in the Change log (production version) would be a good idea - if you haven't already.