On Jan 5, 10:08 am, Dirk Stöcker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Christian Boos wrote: > > I'm not sure if sorting of the Open Source entries is such a good idea > > (http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracUsers?action=diff&version=894). > > Manual ordering allowed us to keep related things together, like Sugar Labs > > and OLPC, numpy and scipy, other Python projects, etc. > > We can also move closer to the top "exemplar" projects and down those who > > are > > not so well tidied (e.g. trac.bevolunteer.org has a lot of ticket spam, it > > shouldn't come first). > > Well, actually I think it is either "no sorting" or alphabetical. To > alphabetical sorting the people can adapt, to any other non-obvious rules > they will not. Yes, it has drawbacks (like everything in the world), but I > still think it is the best solution. > > Maybe some very good references can be moved into the top area where > currently only the two direct trac projects are?
I agree. Alphabetical makes the most sense for listings. I see the same on CommercialServices page where new providers only seem to want to add themselves to the top of the list... Lists should be alphabetical, and as Dirk suggests we should pull out a handful of projects at the top in a "Featured projects" section that contains some more information, testimonials, +++ that help "sell" the project to users. Other than those showcase projects, the project should not need to spend time and effort rating hundreds of projects by moving them up and down in lists based on some subjective sense of importance and order. :::simon https://www.coderesort.com http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/osimons -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
