Sorting of bookmark

[wcy]

Hi Dev Team

Could you add sorting feature in the bookmark?
It is make us easier to find a bookmark.
Thanks!

[iAN CooG]

Hi user, the sorting is already possible since a long time, just click in the header.

[Steffie]

@iAN-CooG Yeah / nah. As i have pointed out a few times to Ayespy when he has given similar advice as you did here, it does work ok in the Panel, but not in the Manager. In the Manager, it still unhelpfully does not retain folders ahead of individual bookmarks, but intermingles them all based only on a blunt alphabetic search on the first letter, irrespective of type. Many users don't like that behaviour. I'm one, which is why i continue to use the extension "Recursive Bookmark Sorter", until the Devs have a chance to fix this.

EDIT: Hmmm, need to slightly amend that. One column sort option in the Manager avoids what i wrote above, but it seems to pertain only to the Manager itself. If a new bookmark was added directly into a Speed-dial page, it appears as the final entry on that SD, even if that's not correctly sorted. Changing over to the Bookmark Manager allows one to "superficially" show that new bm in correct sequence, but it does not really change the actual order, as once you return to the SD, said new bm remains at the end. Hence... again... i need that extension til V no longer behaves this way. I still suspect i'm likely not the only user of that view.

[luetage]

@iAN-CooG True sorting isn't possible, it only affects the display, but it's not being sorted lasting, and therefore sorting is also impossible on a per folder basis.

[Hadden89]

https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/17488/feature-requests-for-1-11/594 something like this?

[iAN CooG]

I only use the side panel for managing bookmarks, and there it works.

[luetage]

@iAN-CooG It does not work as I just described, it only displays sorted, but it isn't sorting the bookmarks. That difference may be small to you personally, but it's huge if you need the functionality.

[iAN CooG]

uhm, the sorting is logical, not physical, like on a filesystem, you don't actually move the files when you display a directory, only the array in memory is sorted.
I really don't see the problem.

[luetage]

@iAN-CooG The problem is that you can't have some folders sorted manually, while others being sorted alphabetically, therefore you are screwed and can do everything manually. Simple as that.

[xyzzy]

Just to add another perspective... Many users want the browser to preserve the order of their manually-sorted and imported bookmarks. With a logical sort, you can sort bookmarks any way that you want and then easily revert back to the manual/unsorted view. If sorting actually physically sorted the bookmarks, accidental resorts would be infuriating to some, especially if there was no "undo" button. I know that this isn't helpful to those that want a physical resort option... I'm just trying to justify why things are the way that they are.

On the other hand, it would also be very handy if you could, for example, select a bunch of bookmarks (and/or folders), right-click, Sort > Sort by Name. That would perform a physical sort and make accidental sorts unlikely.

[luetage]

Well, then it should simply be added as an option, so users who are clumsy don't mess up their bookmarks. And in any case the bookmarks setup can be saved to html, so reverting after a fatal accident shouldn't be a problem. This is no valid argument against alphabetical sorting.

I wonder why you guys are afraid of people wanting to use the browser differently than you are, giving users the option to do something the way they think is best is one of the core principals of Vivaldi. Now this might never be introduced, and I can live with that, but talking it down is not helpful, and doesn't really make sense.