Minimize on close behavior made optional.
See the Changelog for list of features and fixes currently only available in the nightly builds.
You can already order by the uploader's speed using the 'Order by Fastest' button. Might I ask what you would use filename/file size sorting for?
Most of the times when I search, I want to sort on size of the file. The size says something about the quality of the file on the specific music scenes I search on.
I agree with melem. Generally a developer doesn't know all the specifics that an end user will want out of an application, so adding flexibility adds usability. A customisable column pane system in download / upload / search screens that can be sorted by any column that's selected would be a real bonus and make slskQT more user-friendly.
Yeah i always like sorting by DL Speed, then In Que and then Attributes. This gave me the 320kbps files at the top and the fastest users with the least in their que. Then if need be i would search by size (becuase the attributes are often not correct) so if the size was 16mb and it said it was 128kb and went for 13 minutes it was prob 320kb and went for half that time. I think that the most flexibilty is the best and as such i much prefer being able to click on the column headers.
I also dont like the grouping by user.
Have you looked at search filters yet? They should allow for the kind of elimination you're performing much more easily than through sorting. There are filter attributes for bitrate and file size. And there are options for sorting by download speed and queue length which are grouped by user anyway.
Agreed, but the sorting-by-click variant has one clear advantage: NO TYPING involved :)
You'd just click once on the heading bar wherever you want and you get the sorting right as you want to. (BTW, I usually need the sorting by file size, because I'm interested in audiobooks _not_ ebooks). See, we users just like it simple :) I love your search filter, but it should be a convenience gimmick instead of an emergency option because you cannot sort like in 100,000 other applications.
I agree with this - I just tried clicking on the column header to sort, and my first thought was that sorting wasn't implemented yet - the column headers look like standard listbox headers you click on to sort on/change sort direction. I only noticed the buttons at the top a while later - they're visually nowhere near the main area and separated by a lot of empty space.
I'm still not seeing how to sort. I like to have the option to just click on the column headings, so that the biggest files are on top. That makes it very easy to see if there is a video available or a lossless format available for download.
Yep, I agree as well I'm afraid. It's so much easier to search for the file/album I am looking for using SoulSeek NS. The abbility to search, then click the 'Attributes' tab to instantly sort by file size, is for me, a 'must have'. I also find that being able to click a header to sort by user, helps when files within an album are of a variable bitrate.
Also, not being able to see where you are in the queue, is confusing.
Would it be possible to integrate these features from the original SoulSeekNS into Soulseek QT?
Have you tried filters yet? They let you easily look for minimum bitrates, bitrate types (CBR or VBR) and minimum file sizes. You can also save your favorite filters to avoid having to type them over and over again.
would be nice also having the possibility to choose amongst different types of files.
i prefere, when possible, downloading only flac and or wav files.
so it would be good being able to filter searches [yes flac, yes wav, no mp3, no mp4 etc etc]...
yeah this is a big flaw with qt that was better in ns. hope it gets fixed soon!
yeah, i want to see file length for audio files. it may seem trivial but it sometimes matters.
The filters are powerful enough, but being able to sort/view the results with a focus on *files* would be nice, because:
The current focus on users in the listing wastes a lot of screen space. I can only have actual files on every 3rd row at best, in a hard to read form. If I don't Expand Users, the view becomes even more useless. (I can't think of a scenario where I'd want to see a list of nothing but usernames.)
Your basic clickable column sorting would alleviate this greatly. My reasoning is that when you're doing quick searches, you glance over the files, maybe change your mind about something etc. The current system feels like you're working with database queries.
Each to their own, but having only a box for filtering the results by typing isn't user friendly :) I suppose it's your classic programmer vs UI designer shenanigans. (And yes, I'm a aware that you can save filters.)
If I may explain why custom column sorting is so desperately useful - I will give the example that many users are looking specifically for DJ sets. For example - I want to find all the 2-3 hour DJ sets of Tiesto or Deep Dish. So I will search for "Deep Dish" - and I want to find the rare and hard to find DJ Sets (which will be 1-3 hours, and not 5 minute songs). So I usually sort by size to find the file sizes that are 100-300MB which are almost always DJ Sets (unless it is a track encoded in FLAC). Without the column sort feature - I would be lost looking among all the singular songs. I understand you have already invested time in the Sort by User feature - but in my opinion this is not very useful and going back to the old way of displaying results is best. Old way of displaying results is the most flexible and allows most flexibility to the users for their desired way of finding files. I don't think the wheel should be reinvented here. (P.S. I have tried the filters, and they are hard to use and it is difficult to set a specific filter cut off point for filesize rather than just seeing them from biggest files to smallest files.) Thanks again.
Ok, I'll look into adding the option to view search results the old way. It's definitely a lot of work though, basically reconstructing the view from scratch, so I can't say when I'll be able to get it done.
You're the best. FYI:http://doc.qt.digia.com/latest/qsortfilterproxymodel.htmlhttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/5731050/sort-qstandarditemmodel-in-c-qthttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/10893843/qsortfilterproxymodel-sort-m...http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6785481/how-to-set-filter-option-in-q...http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1750226&seqNum=3
QUOTE: Thanks to QSortFilterProxyModel, you can add sorting/filtering capability to an existing model with fewer than five lines of code. Figure 13.11 shows how the proxy sits between the view and the model.
Thanks, yeah, changing the sorting method isn't hard, but there are a lot of little things under the hood like ties between each UI element and the underlying data system, certain UI functions, that need to be adapted for this alternate way of presenting search results. I actually already have it displaying search results the old way as an option, but still need to adapt some of the remaining UI code. I should have something to show within the next two or three days.
Here we go: SoulseekQt-11-6-2012.exe. Once you check 'use old-style search results' under Options->General new searches should display the old way. Column sorting and filters appear to work, but let me know if you run into any problems with either new-style or old-style search results display so I can fix them before making another release.