should 'sort by age' be the same as 'sort by birth date'?
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:51 am
If you click on the age or birth date column to sort the membership list, you get different results. There are actually two differences:
1. Assuming the membership list is sorted by name at first, if you click on age, it's sorted from youngest to oldest. You can click again to reverse the order. If you had clicked on birth date instead of age (from when it was sorted by name), it would have been sorted from oldest to youngest. Why do the two have opposite default sort orders? It's not a big deal since you can click the column again and sort the other way. It just seems odd that they don't sort the same direction with the first click.
2. Sorting by birth date truly sorts people by age. Sorting by age just groups people currently at the same age and sorts each group alphabetically. For example, if Sis Jones turned 50 yesterday and Bro Smith turns 51 tomorrow, technically they are the same age as of today (50) even though Bro Smith is essentially a year older. When you sort by age, Sis Jones will be listed first because Jones is before Smith in the alphabet even though Bro Smith is really older.
I suppose grouping people by age and sorting each group alphabetically could come in handy, like if you have 20 deacons and want to list all the 13 year olds separately from the 12 year olds so you can split the quorum, but want each list sorted alphabetically.
However, just to add to the confusion, sorting by age doesn't always group by age and sort alphabetically so it isn't consistent. If you sort by birth date *first* and then sort by age, no mater how many times you click on age to reverse the sorting order, it now *always* sorts by true age and doesn't alphabetize the groups. That's just weird.
If you go back and sort by name and then click on age, it's now back to grouping the ages together and sub-sorting by name.
<...light bulb goes off...>
I see the pattern now. Sorting by age, groups people by age and then sub-sorts by whatever column was previously selected. I don't know if that's intentional. I couldn't find anything in the wiki about it. So from the membership list, if I click on sex (as an aside, I'd prefer that column be called gender) and then I click on age, I get people grouped by the same age (as of today) and then sorted by gender.
It's kind of a Shift+Click feature but in reverse order. In Outlook, I can sort my mailbox by date received by clicking on that column. If I then want to see all the mail I got today sorted by sender, I can Shift+Click in the sender column. If I then want to see all the mail I got today by Bro Jones but sorted by size, I can Shift+Click on size. It's now sorting by three columns, in the order I clicked on them.
With the membership list, clicking on age sort of implies a Shift+Click from the previous column but you have to click in the column you want to sub-sort *first* and then click on the age column. If those columns were in Outlook, you'd click on age first then Shift+Click on the sub-sort column, if that makes sense.
1. Assuming the membership list is sorted by name at first, if you click on age, it's sorted from youngest to oldest. You can click again to reverse the order. If you had clicked on birth date instead of age (from when it was sorted by name), it would have been sorted from oldest to youngest. Why do the two have opposite default sort orders? It's not a big deal since you can click the column again and sort the other way. It just seems odd that they don't sort the same direction with the first click.
2. Sorting by birth date truly sorts people by age. Sorting by age just groups people currently at the same age and sorts each group alphabetically. For example, if Sis Jones turned 50 yesterday and Bro Smith turns 51 tomorrow, technically they are the same age as of today (50) even though Bro Smith is essentially a year older. When you sort by age, Sis Jones will be listed first because Jones is before Smith in the alphabet even though Bro Smith is really older.
I suppose grouping people by age and sorting each group alphabetically could come in handy, like if you have 20 deacons and want to list all the 13 year olds separately from the 12 year olds so you can split the quorum, but want each list sorted alphabetically.
However, just to add to the confusion, sorting by age doesn't always group by age and sort alphabetically so it isn't consistent. If you sort by birth date *first* and then sort by age, no mater how many times you click on age to reverse the sorting order, it now *always* sorts by true age and doesn't alphabetize the groups. That's just weird.
If you go back and sort by name and then click on age, it's now back to grouping the ages together and sub-sorting by name.
<...light bulb goes off...>
I see the pattern now. Sorting by age, groups people by age and then sub-sorts by whatever column was previously selected. I don't know if that's intentional. I couldn't find anything in the wiki about it. So from the membership list, if I click on sex (as an aside, I'd prefer that column be called gender) and then I click on age, I get people grouped by the same age (as of today) and then sorted by gender.
It's kind of a Shift+Click feature but in reverse order. In Outlook, I can sort my mailbox by date received by clicking on that column. If I then want to see all the mail I got today sorted by sender, I can Shift+Click in the sender column. If I then want to see all the mail I got today by Bro Jones but sorted by size, I can Shift+Click on size. It's now sorting by three columns, in the order I clicked on them.
With the membership list, clicking on age sort of implies a Shift+Click from the previous column but you have to click in the column you want to sub-sort *first* and then click on the age column. If those columns were in Outlook, you'd click on age first then Shift+Click on the sub-sort column, if that makes sense.