jamesmartins / foursquared

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/foursquared
Apache License 2.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

completely random sorting #203

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Open foursquare app
2. Click Places tab
3. Under Nearby the locations are various distances away, not sorted in any 
obvious way. (not alphabetically, not by distance)
4. I then usually have to do a search in order to find the appropriate venue 
name.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
The venues with the nearest distance should be at the top.  I would expect it 
to auto-sort... but how about at the very least having a long-press on the 
Places tab manually initiate a sort?

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Android 2.1
v2010-07-13
HTC Incredible

Please provide any additional information below.
I believe this app has always behaved this way for me.  Hitting Menu-> Refresh 
does not give any different output.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sir...@gmail.com on 19 Jul 2010 at 7:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Patch available here: 
http://code.google.com/r/loganjohnson-foursquared/source/detail?r=d165503522a854
501109c6b123c61f8f75f0f0a6

Original comment by logan.jo...@gmail.com on 26 Jul 2010 at 11:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
i've tried logan's latest build, which includes this patch:
http://github.com/downloads/loganj/foursquared/foursquared2-loganj-20100726.apk
and it does appear to now sort by distance.  This seems most natural for 
Foursquare to sort this way, and I'd love to see this committed to the mainline 
client!

Original comment by sir...@gmail.com on 26 Jul 2010 at 8:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
We've gone back and forth on this clientside - the /venue api method is 
returning the final bucket (non-trending / non-favorites) in order of venue 
popularity. The idea is that you probably want to see bars and pubs over a 
dentist's office even though you might be closer to the dentist's office. I'm 
ok marking this as [won't fix], we should add a feature enhancement if we want 
to give the user the option to re-sort them by distance.

Original comment by mar...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2010 at 3:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Huh.  I had the same impression as sirvin, which is that it seemed pretty much 
random-- not the hallmark of a useful sort.  I'll file the feature enhancement 
and we can address whether and how to do it there.

Original comment by logan.jo...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2010 at 3:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
hi mark, thanks for responding.  i guess i don't understand how sorting by 
popularity is preferable on smartphones that have functional gps. the only 
example of where i could see it being useful is if you are standing beneath a 
skyscraper where your exact location would be the same as several venues.  
otherwise, assuming the GPS functionality on your phone is reasonably accurate, 
most people would want to check in from the actual venue.  (to not do so risks 
not having checkins count for mayorships, points, etc. see: 
http://blog.foursquare.com/post/503822143/on-foursquare-cheating-and-claiming-ma
yorships-from)

In your example, I would think most people would not expect to be checking into 
the pub from the dentist's office.  They would be checking into the pub from 
the pub.  Sorting by location fosters this. 

i would venture a guess that the api returns listings in that fashion to 
facilitate devices without a decent GPS, such as the mobile website, where you 
cannot rely on the geolocation to be accurate beyond a huge radius around the 
cell tower.

I think the best approach would love if logan's patch could be added as an 
optional checkbox in the settings, even if not enabled by default.

Original comment by sir...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2010 at 3:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Doesn't look like I can file an enhancement, or at least I can't see any way to 
create anything other than a defect at the moment.  I'll leave it to someone 
else.

Let's not discuss this further here; now that this issue is marked resolved, 
it'll just get lost.

Original comment by logan.jo...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2010 at 3:26