Why does Thunderbird sort by date in *ascending* order by default?
Michael A. Puls II
Gecko/20100405 Shredder/3.2a1pre
Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending order by
default?
This seems like an annoying default because newer messages are way at the
bottom of the message list. A more ideal default would be to do it in
descending order so that new messages are up top.
--
Michael
Mark Banner
> This seems like an annoying default because newer messages are way at
> the bottom of the message list. A more ideal default would be to do it
> in descending order so that new messages are up top.
This is all about preferences, one person's ideal is another person's
pain. Although from observing bugzilla and get satisfaction over the
last few years, I would say the majority of people are satisfied with
the current setting.
If you want to change your global default sort order, then you can set
the pref "mailnews.default_sort_order" to 2 (descending). The default is
1 (ascending).
Standard8
Thomas Stache
> If you want to change your global default sort order, then you can set
> the pref "mailnews.default_sort_order" to 2 (descending). The default is
> 1 (ascending).
>
> Standard8
While we're on this subject... Is there a way to apply this default to
all folders, somehow overriding the persisted per-folder value?
(Bonus points if this would work without re-indexing folders or
re-syncing GloDa)
T.
Ben Bucksch
> Is there a way to apply this default to all folders, somehow
> overriding the persisted per-folder value?
>
Ben Bucksch
> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
> order by default?
Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top to
bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
For you, it is totally logical to have the new stuff on top. As
Standard8 said, it comes down to preference, and we seem to have a fine
default.
Michael A. Puls II
<ben.buck...@beonex.com> wrote:
> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending order
>> by default?
>
> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top to
> bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from top
to bottom. It's just the messages you're most likely more interested in
are up top.
Imagine if a forum was like Thunderbird's default. New threads would be a
zillion pixels down or, for the paginated version, a zillion pages deep.
It seems unnatural to make the bottom of the message list the focal point.
> For you, it is totally logical to have the new stuff on top. As
> Standard8 said, it comes down to preference, and we seem to have a fine
> default.
I'm not so sure it's a fine default, which is why I brought this up.
Perhaps all those that don't like the default just never say anything and
change it.
Something to think about.
Thanks
--
Michael
Ben Bucksch
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
> <ben.buck...@beonex.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
>>> order by default?
>>
>> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top
>> to bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
>> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
>
> With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from
> top to bottom.
No, that would be in the wrong order. When there's a thread with several
or many posts since I last read mail, I need to rest the oldest first.
That means I have to read from bottom to top, not from top to bottom as
you say.
> It's just the messages you're most likely more interested in are up top.
So are they in the default layout, because we're automatically scrolling
to the first unread (or new, actually?) message, so what you see is the
first new message on top (of the screen, not the scrollable area), and
then it progresses down in time order.
Peter Lairo
> On 07.04.2010 16:02, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
>> <ben.buck...@beonex.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>>>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
>>>> order by default?
>>>
>>> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top
>>> to bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
>>> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
>>
>> With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from
>> top to bottom.
>
> No, that would be in the wrong order. When there's a thread with several
> or many posts since I last read mail, I need to rest the oldest first.
> That means I have to read from bottom to top, not from top to bottom as
> you say.
We're talking about *e-mail* (where the newest is usually the most
relevant), not newsgroups (where there is lots of threading - unless
some newsletter subscriber breaks it).
>> It's just the messages you're most likely more interested in are up top.
>
> So are they in the default layout, because we're automatically scrolling
> to the first unread (or new, actually?) message, so what you see is the
> first new message on top (of the screen, not the scrollable area), and
> then it progresses down in time order.
That's OK, but it does seem odd to have the newest e-mails on the
bottom, and the old stuff towering above it out into (virtual) space.
Also, if there are a lot of unread e-mails (more than can be listed in
the messages pane), then the newest - and most relevant - ones are *out
of sight* - beyond the bottom.
Related: Why is the *Size* column not shown by default for e-mails, and
how is that irrelevant to my n00b relatives forwarding me 3+ MB e-mails
on a regular basis? If they saw how large the e-mails in their Inbox
are, then they might realize why sending is taking so long, and why some
recipients are complaining about the large/slow e-mails. Now, they have
*no* way of knowing.
Related: Why is the "Read" column shown by default? The unread messages
are already bold, so it seems redundant, and a waste of valuable
horizontal space (e.g., for the more important Size column).
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Bugs I think should be fixed ASAP:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250539
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391057
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436259
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446444
https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22003
Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Anthropogenic Global Warming skepsis: http://tinyurl.com/AGW-Skepsis
Michael A. Puls II
<ben.buck...@beonex.com> wrote:
> On 07.04.2010 16:02, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
>> <ben.buck...@beonex.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>>>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
>>>> order by default?
>>>
>>> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top to
>>> bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
>>> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
>>
>> With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from
>> top to bottom.
>
> No, that would be in the wrong order. When there's a thread with several
> or many posts since I last read mail, I need to rest the oldest first.
> That means I have to read from bottom to top, not from top to bottom as
> you say.
M2 has this cool thing in thread mode where if there's a reply to a
thread, the thread jumps up to the top of the list. But unfortunately, if
sorting by Date in descending order, the reply messages in the thread are
also sorted by Date in descending order (instead of ascending like
messages in a forum thread). So, M2 almost has a forum-threading mode.
So, yes, I can understand that situation. But, that just means threading
should perhaps be better (when threading is on). But, threading isn't on
by default and that's an advanced setting.
>> It's just the messages you're most likely more interested in are up top.
>
> So are they in the default layout, because we're automatically scrolling
> to the first unread (or new, actually?) message, so what you see is the
> first new message on top (of the screen, not the scrollable area), and
> then it progresses down in time order.
Yes, auto-jumping to the first unread is pretty necessary to work around
new messages not being up top.
OK, so what I'll take from this thread is:
Message lists are sorted in ascending order by default because:
1. It just seems illogical to not to list oldest messages at top (a) and
newest messages at bottom (z).
2. Sorting in descending order screws up threading, *if* you use the
non-default threading mode.
3. Ascending order problems with new messages not being up top is worked
around by the auto-jump behavior.
I disagree with the reasons. But, that's O.K. I just wanted to know why.
Thanks for the info.
--
Michael
Randy & Grace
> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>
> > Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
> > order by default?
>
> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top to
> bottom.
Self-evident self contradiction. Since we read from top to bottom, we
should have the new stuff on top so we don't have to keep scrolling
down through a list of things we've already read to find something new
which we have not.
Randy & Grace
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
>
Correct. I detest the fact that every time I do a setup of
Thunderbird, I have to sit and adjust it to show new articles on top.
I kept thinking I wasn't getting any new e-mail, then realized I had
to manually scroll to the bottom of every folder, every time I wanted
to see what was new. As a default, it makes no sense whatsoever to
keep things you've already read fixed at the top of your list, where
it's right in your face, and then make people scroll down manually to
see what's new. Way more work.
Randy & Grace
> On 07.04.2010 16:02, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
> > <ben.bucksch.n...@beonex.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> >>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
> >>> order by default?
>
> >> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top
> >> to bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
> >> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
>
> > With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from
> > top to bottom.
>
> No, that would be in the wrong order. When there's a thread with several
> or many posts since I last read mail, I need to rest the oldest first.
> That means I have to read from bottom to top, not from top to bottom as
> you say.
So you have a total of what, 5 emails in a single folder? Or is it
just that you like manually scrolling down through 1,000 lines of e-
mails you've already read, in 10 or 20 different folders, every single
time you want to see what's new?
Maybe AFTER you've set all your folder views to show only _unread_ e-
mails, it might be *tolerable* to keep them in ascending order. But
as a default, it makes no sense whatsoever, for people who get lots of
e-mail, and who use lots of folders, to have to continually scroll
down through a long list of headers they've already read, to see
what's new, in folder after folder.
> > It's just the messages you're most likely more interested in are up top.
>
> So are they in the default layout, because we're automatically scrolling...
And right there you've just exposed, undermined, and contradicted
yourself. "We're automatically scrolling"...
Do you have some extension that "automatically" scrolls down for you?
I don't. No, it's actually _manual_ scrolling, and it's a completely
idiotic and annoying waste of time to have to _keep_ on manually
scrolling down a long list of headers you've already read, to see what
you have not, in folder after folder.
Randy & Grace
wrote:
Thanks for the tip on how to change the global default.
I can see around 50 lines of headers in my message pane, but have some
folders with thousands of e-mails in them. Unless I've gotten more
than 50 new e-mails since the last time I checked, I see ALL of my new
e-mails at the top, in a glance, and could even instantly select the
oldest new unread e-mail from that list. By contrast, if it defaults
to have new messages on the bottom, I either have to select a view to
show only unread messages, click a jump button, or manually scroll
down to see what's new. How is that somehow more convenient than just
instantly seeing what's new on top? Unless you're doing some
research, you're not checking your e-mail to re-read material day
after day, that you'd want it to be displayed right where you're
looking at all times.
I seriously doubt, if a scientific poll were taken, that most people
would prefer scrolling through a long list of headers they've already
read, to see if there's something new, as a DEFAULT setting. Yes,
maybe AFTER you've already set up all your folders to show only unread
messages, or you've set up all your folder properties to delete
messages that have been read, or that are more than a day old, it
might be tolerable to have the new stuff show on the bottom.
Otherwise, you're either manually clicking a jump button or scrolling
down to see what's new, in folder after folder.
> Standard8
EE
You can change that default sort order from about:config.
mailnews.default_sort_order - set to 2 for descending
Randy & Grace
Yes, thanks. That's what I did.
But as a *default* setting, having it set to ascending makes
absolutely no sense to me. For comparison, my message pane shows
around 50 lines. With a descending setting, I simply open the folder,
and instantaneously see ALL new messages, from oldest to newest at a
glance, without doing *anything*. With an ascending setting, I open
the folder and see all my old e-mail headers that I've *already* read,
not any of the new ones that I'm looking for, whether the oldest
unread message or the most recent. So now, I have to click "n",
manually scroll down, or set my folder view to "unread" only, before I
can even begin to see what new messages came in.
So which is easier? 1) instantly seeing ALL your unread messages
without doing anything, because of the descending view, or 2) having
to click "n" to get from where you are to where you want to be, or
having to first set your views to unread in every folder, or having to
set your folders to delete all messages that are older than a day, so
you can get right to your new unread messages?
I can see how people could *tolerate* the ascending view, by using the
"n" key, but I can't see how it's possibly going to be more convenient
to do that as a *default* than it is to just immediately have ALL
your unread messages visible on top, because of a descending view.
Unless you're getting more than 50 new mail headers in each folder
every time you check your mail, you can STILL immediately see and
click (without scrolling or doing anything else), on your oldest
unread message, with the descending view. You can't do that with the
ascending view. You have to click something else manually to make it
happen.
Nathan Tuggy
No, it's not an extension: it's Thunderbird core code, enabled by
default. Do you not see Thunderbird auto-scrolling to display the latest
new unread messages when you enter a folder? Because I certainly do see
that. If you don't see that behavior, I suggest troubleshooting to find
out what's going wrong.
--
Nathan Tuggy [:tuggyne]
nat...@tuggycomputer.com
--
~ Do illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup? ~
http://tagzilla.mozdev.org v0.066
Randy & Grace
wrote:
No, I have never seen that behavior on any previous Thunderbird
installation. It has always defaulted to the ascending view, and I've
always had to manually do something to get to the new messages when
there are more emails in a folder than there are lines visible on my
monitor. I've also had others tell me they use the "n" key to get to
the first unread message in ascending view. You're telling me that
(by default, without adjusting any other settings first) whenever you
open a folder, it just automatically jumps to the unread messages,
even when you have more old, read mail than will fit in one screen on
your message pane?
Ron K.
That is the default behavior. There is a hidden pref
mailnews.scroll_to_new_message
When this is set to false causes behavior like what you dont like.
Use the Config Edit and filter on scroll to help find the pref.
--
Ron K.
Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
Kernel Restore reported Major Error used BSOD to msg the enemy!
Peter Lairo
I think Thunderbird goes the the message that was selected the last time
you were in that folder; and that message is usually the message right
above the new messages.
How many of the new messages scroll into view? As many as will fit while
leaving the selected one visible at the top? A few? One? None?
I fully agree with Randy and/or Grace that the newest e-mails should be
on top, and that sort order ascending makes very little sense.
The only folder I use sort:ascending in is the folder I filter all my
bugmail into, which might explain why developers prefer sort:ascending.
But most users don't receive bugmail...
Randy & Grace
>There is a hidden pref
> mailnews.scroll_to_new_message
> When this is set to false causes behavior like what you dont like.
So yours have always been set to true on your installations? Wonder
why mine have never been like that.
> Use the Config Edit and filter on scroll to help find the pref.
Thanks. I know how to edit the config file and get things the way I
want them. It's just that I've never experienced the situation you're
describing by *default*.
Ben Bucksch
> that just means threading should perhaps be better (when threading is
> on). But, threading isn't on by default and that's an advanced setting.
Same applies to non-threaded display, even more so.
When I said "thread", I meant "bunch of emails with the same subject,
with are all a reply to each other", including linear conversations, not
the hierarchical threaded mode.
John Beranek
I just have to jump in here, I can't hold back any longer. So, 2 people
on this thread think the current default behaviour is wrong. The default
should _clearly_ be changed, yeah?
John.
P.S. As you might've guessed, I'm in the "newest emails at the bottom" camp.
--
John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
Randy & Grace
1) Show me a scientific poll that actually confirms a majority of TB
users would prefer ascending sort order by default.
2) What real reason do you have for ascending sort order, other than
the unproved implication that if only two people opposed it in this
thread, then a majority of TB users must therefore prefer it?
Meanwhile:
1) Descending order puts ALL unread e-mails right in your field of
vision, at the top of the message pane. You can then read them in
whatever order you want, whether oldest first or most recent first.
2) It's my understanding that when you use ascending order, and if
you have more read e-mails in a folder than will fit on your message
pane, the best you can hope for is it will jump to the bottom of your
message pane and then you can keep clicking "n" to see the next unread
e-mail. Or you can manually scroll down till all your unread e-mails
are visible at the top of the message pane, which you could have had
to begin with by just setting it to descending.
Vijay Aravamudhan
On 4/10/10 8:22 AM, Randy & Grace wrote:
> 1) Show me a scientific poll that actually confirms a majority of TB
> users would prefer ascending sort order by default.
> 2) What real reason do you have for ascending sort order, other than
> the unproved implication that if only two people opposed it in this
> thread, then a majority of TB users must therefore prefer it?
>
default [ascending] order were not inclined enough to chime in and post "noise".
But since the numbers seem to be "skewed", I just thought that I would give my 2
cents and say that I DO like the current [ascending] order default.
> Meanwhile:
>
> 1) Descending order puts ALL unread e-mails right in your field of
> vision, at the top of the message pane. You can then read them in
> whatever order you want, whether oldest first or most recent first.
>
> 2) It's my understanding that when you use ascending order, and if
> you have more read e-mails in a folder than will fit on your message
> pane, the best you can hope for is it will jump to the bottom of your
> message pane and then you can keep clicking "n" to see the next unread
> e-mail. Or you can manually scroll down till all your unread e-mails
> are visible at the top of the message pane, which you could have had
> to begin with by just setting it to descending.
starting with the first one - so that I can get the full context. This also
enables me to reply to the possible list of people without repeating something
that someone else has already replied with. The 'n' key/button press enables me
to jump to the next unread email as soon as I go to the folder. Based on my
settings, I would either mark as read or keep as unread until I reply to the email.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-thunderbird mailing list
> dev-apps-t...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-thunderbird
Thanks,
Vijay
Michael A. Puls II
wrote:
>
> On 4/10/10 8:22 AM, Randy & Grace wrote:
>> 1) Show me a scientific poll that actually confirms a majority of TB
>> users would prefer ascending sort order by default.
> The same can be said/asked of you....
I've been doing in-person tech support for more than 12 years (and QA for
a third of that). I know my users very well and ascending order by default
in any client is not suited for them. In fact, I've never found anyone
that desired ascending order till I read some of the posts in this thread.
And, I have to admit, I'm very, very, very surprised that the default is
so well received on here. Totally unexpected.
Even over the years on forums etc., I've never seen even advanced users
using ascending order.
Sure, I don't have data you can look at to back that up. So, you either
have to trust me or not. But, in my experience, the default is very
ill-suited for your (well my) average user.
The users I've dealt with over the years may be a small set compared to
the grand scheme of things. But, it just seems like the default is not
very ideal. Maybe my users are just too average. ;)
--
Michael
Randy & Grace
> On 4/10/10 8:22 AM, Randy & Grace wrote:
> 1) Show me a scientific poll that actually confirms a majority of TB
> > users would prefer ascending sort order by default.
>
> The same can be said/asked of you....
And had I been the one arguing on the basis of how many people
supported the descending view *in this thread*, that might have been a
valid point.
> 2) What real reason do you have for ascending sort order, other than
> > the unproved implication that if only two people opposed it in this
> > thread, then a majority of TB users must therefore prefer it?
>
> It might (and in my case, definitely is) be the case that those who DO use this
> default [ascending] order were not inclined enough to chime in and post "noise".
> But since the numbers seem to be "skewed",
Oh...well if *you* prefer an ascending sort order, then obviously
that's what most people want, and therefore any failure to see that
represented in this thread means the numbers must be skewed. See what
I mean?
> I just thought that I would give my 2
> cents and say that I DO like the current [ascending] order default.
And now if we could just get to some actual reasons why...oh
wait...there they are below...
> Meanwhile:
>
> > 1) Descending order puts ALL unread e-mails right in your field of
> > vision, at the top of the message pane. You can then read them in
> > whatever order you want, whether oldest first or most recent first.
>
> > 2) It's my understanding that when you use ascending order, and if
> > you have more read e-mails in a folder than will fit on your message
> > pane, the best you can hope for is it will jump to the bottom of your
> > message pane and then you can keep clicking "n" to see the next unread
> > e-mail. Or you can manually scroll down till all your unread e-mails
> > are visible at the top of the message pane, which you could have had
> > to begin with by just setting it to descending.
> The ascending order suits me because I like to read each email in a thread
> starting with the first one - so that I can get the full context. This also
> enables me to reply to the possible list of people without repeating something
> that someone else has already replied with. The 'n' key/button press enables me
> to jump to the next unread email as soon as I go to the folder.
So which is easier?
1) Open any folder and instantly see ALL of your unread e-mails
visible at once, at the top of your message pane, so you can then
select either the oldest or newest unread e-mail (descending view) at
your discretion.
2) Open any folder and keep on seeing all the same old headers you
already read, then click "n", so your view jumps to the last line of
your message pane for your oldest unread message. Then keep clicking
"n" to go to the next unread message, or scroll down manually so you
can have all your unread messages visible in your message pane at
once, AND in ascending order.
> Based on my
> settings,
Yeah, but we're talking about how it is by *default*. In other words,
how does it come out of the box? Sure, AFTER you tweak the settings,
you might be able to make the ascending view work in a way that's
tolerable. But I've never seen it work like that out of the box.
Every time I install TB, what invariably happens is, I go to a folder
(IMAP, so it already has thousands of e-mails, even though it is a new
install) that shows it has new messages, and instead of seeing those
messages, I see all the old, read headers. Then I realize I'm going
to have to scroll or jump down to the bottom of the list to see what's
new. After doing that about ten times from folder to folder, I'm
already hating the ascending view, wondering how anyone in their right
mind can possibly prefer to do that, and realizing I'll have to
manually set everything to descending view again.
Mark Banner
> Sure, I don't have data you can look at to back that up. So, you either
> have to trust me or not. But, in my experience, the default is very
> ill-suited for your (well my) average user.
I think the state of things are such that:
- We have no hard evidence which way is better.
- We all have our own opinions about which way we prefer and the reasons
why.
- We all have our own impressions of what the people around us prefer.
- We're not seeing frequent complaints about the current default.
Although this could be that people just flip the order to what they
prefer without saying anything.
Whilst getting some evidence would probably provide interesting data, I
really doubt that changing the default is, in itself, going to convince
more people to use Thunderbird. It may be that it is one of the factors
that help, but we just don't have that information. I also believe that
this is one of those preferences that if we change without reasonable
evidence, we're likely to upset lots of existing users.
Finding out more about preferred sort orders feels like something we
could work into an information gathering exercise later on (e.g. if we
did our own version of test pilot). At the moment it feels like we are
arguing just based on our own feelings and the discussion isn't going
anywhere.
If we want to do something at this time, then I'd propose that someone
writes a page on http://support.mozillamessaging.com/ that tells users
about the settings available for ascending/descending sort orders and
how to change them.
Standard8.
Nikolay Shopik
> Finding out more about preferred sort orders feels like something we
> could work into an information gathering exercise later on (e.g. if we
> did our own version of test pilot). At the moment it feels like we are
> arguing just based on our own feelings and the discussion isn't going
> anywhere.
Basically we *really* need some sort _feedback_ tool which collects
NON-privacy prefs settings and sends them to MoMo server. So we can see
preference popularity and finally could decide which default *SHOULD*
changed in next releases. Otherwise all data we gathering is biased.
Vijay Aravamudhan
On 4/11/10 10:39 AM, Mark Banner wrote:
> I think the state of things are such that:
>
> - We have no hard evidence which way is better.
> - We all have our own opinions about which way we prefer and the reasons why.
> - We all have our own impressions of what the people around us prefer.
> - We're not seeing frequent complaints about the current default. Although
> this could be that people just flip the order to what they prefer without
> saying anything.
>
based on preferences.
Thanks,
Vijay
Ben Bucksch
> - We're not seeing frequent complaints about the current default.
> Although this could be that people just flip the order to what they
> prefer without saying anything.
... which would still mean that this isn't a big deal, even if it was
wrong. After all, it's trivial and obvious to change with one click.
I find the fact that I can't switch all folders at once much more severe
(and worth to sink time into), for example.
Randy & Grace
wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 21:26, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> - We're not seeing frequent complaints about the current default.
> Although this could be that people just flip the order to what they
> prefer without saying anything.
Which is the case with me. I've been annoyed with how it defaults on
new setups for a long time. Now I see others agree, but have just
never complained.
> Whilst getting some evidence would probably provide interesting data, I
> really doubt that changing the default is, in itself, going to convince
> more people to use Thunderbird.
Exactly. Who needs evidence when we've got *your* opinion?
Randy & Grace
That sounds interesting.
Randy & Grace
Of course. Who needs to get actual evidence what people want as long
as we have *your opinion*, and no angry mob is beating you over the
head? And while we're at it, let's change the subject now that you've
had your *final word*, lest you become aware of other people who are
also annoyed by ascending sort as a default.
Randy & Grace
> On 11.04.2010 17:39, Mark Banner wrote:
>
> > - We're not seeing frequent complaints about the current default.
> > Although this could be that people just flip the order to what they
> > prefer without saying anything.
>
> ... which would still mean that this isn't a big deal, even if it was
> wrong.
While this one issue isn't enough to change clients over, the
underlying attitude that unless an angry mob defeats your assumptions,
by God you're not going to do anything about it, seems arrogant and
annoying. A lot of companies invest a lot of time and effort to survey
and find out what people want, so they benefit from developing a
product more useful to the masses.
Timo Pietilä
> Gecko/20100405 Shredder/3.2a1pre
>
> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending order
> by default?
>
> the bottom of the message list. A more ideal default would be to do it
> in descending order so that new messages are up top.
I put some thought in this to figure out which way is better.
Problem is that people read from top to bottom and because of that want
the most recent old mails to be in top of the list (descending), but
also wants to read from _oldest_ unread to _newest_ unread (ascending).
That makes two sorting orders that are mutually exclusive.
So this is what I figured out:
List should be sorted with separation line between unread and read posts
and use descending order for old posts and ascending order for new posts
and those new posts are placed in top of the list.
When person reads mails they go in the read mail (that descending order
part).
This also makes those annoying "wrong date" -mails in top of the list.
Any comments? Could that be useful UI feature improvement? Should I make
a bugzilla "feature request" for this?
I personally use threaded view for mails too, so that I can see who has
answered to which message and in which order, but I know that is not
what most people use do (and it doesn't work if someone changes the
subject for mails).
Timo Pietilä
Ben Bucksch
> I put some thought in this to figure out which way is better.
>
> Problem is that people read from top to bottom and because of that
> want the most recent old mails to be in top of the list (descending),
> but also wants to read from _oldest_ unread to _newest_ unread
> (ascending).
>
> That makes two sorting orders that are mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily. If the client automatically scrolls down to the newest
mail when opening the folder, you have both requirements met at the same
time. And, that happens to be what we do. (By default.)
Randy & Grace
> Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>
> > Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a4pre)
> > Gecko/20100405 Shredder/3.2a1pre
>
> > Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending order
> > by default?
>
> > This seems like an annoying default because newer messages are way at
> > the bottom of the message list. A more ideal default would be to do it
> > in descending order so that new messages are up top.
>
> I put some thought in this to figure out which way is better.
Thanks.
> Problem is that people read from top to bottom and because of that want
> the most recent old mails to be in top of the list (descending),
I do not prefer descending sort because I want my most recent OLD,
READ messages to STAY at the top. I use it because I want to see ALL
my NEW, UNREAD messages at the top, INSTEAD OF having to SCROLL down
or click some button to see what's new. Most people are opening a
folder to read new, unread messages, right? So why do you want to
default those messages to a position where they are not the focal
point, and you have to take an extra step to get to them?
It's unclear to me exactly how the default settings execute. Some
have indicated that with ascending view, TB automatically jumps down
to the unread messages when the folder opens, by default. If that
were my experience, I might not have a problem with ascending sort.
But my experience, and why I am so annoyed with it, is that it does
NOT automatically put the new, unread messages at the top, but shows
the same old messages I've already read, then I have to manually
scroll down, or do something to see new messages.
> but
> also wants to read from _oldest_ unread to _newest_ unread (ascending).
I can easily read new, unread messages in whatever order I want, IF
they are all at the top of the screen, as they are with descending
sort. With ascending sort (in my experience), they are at the BOTTOM,
often completely out of view.
> That makes two sorting orders that are mutually exclusive.
See above. In my experience, ascending sort often excludes seeing
your new messages at all, without taking further action, but
descending sort does not exclude you seeing and opening your e-mails
in whatever order you prefer, because they are ALL on top, in your
field of view.
> So this is what I figured out:
>
> List should be sorted with separation line between unread and read posts
> and use descending order for old posts and ascending order for new posts
> and those new posts are placed in top of the list.
The key for me, is the new, unread messages (whether ascending or
descending) MUST appear at the top, in my field of view, and NOT
require me to scroll down or take further action to find and read
them, as a DEFAULT.
...
>Could that be useful UI feature improvement? Should I make
> a bugzilla "feature request" for this?
I need to figure out the discrepancy between what ascending sort order
apologists are telling me, and what I am actually experiencing. When
I open a new install of TB, with IMAP accounts that will be quickly
populated with thousands of e-mails, the first thing I see when I open
a folder, is OLD, READ, headers. Then I have to keep manually
scrolling or jumping down to see what's new again and again, in EVERY
folder thereafter. The ascending sort apologists are telling me that
by default, with ascending sort, TB just automatically jumps down to
the new, unread messages, so they are right there in your face every
time.
Randy & Grace
And that's exactly what you get with descending sort, because ALL your
unread messages appear on top, in your field of view, so you can open
them in whatever order you want.
>And, that happens to be what we do. (By default.)
If that had been my experience, I probably never would have complained
about ascending sort. But it is not. Every time I open a new install
of TB, and populate it with IMAP accounts and foldlers that have
thousands of messages in them, the first thing I experience when I
open a new folder, is to see all my oldest messages on top, and NOT
the new ones. Then I have to manually scroll down or do something to
find and read the new messages. So I am a bit puzzled why the
ascending sort apologists claim that it just automatically jumps to
your new messages by default, and puts them on top, in ascending order.
Timo Pietilä
It isn't what TB does. Maybe that is a bug. When you open TB it doesn't
show right place of the list.
In any way I prefer to have my mails in descending order so that I can
read the most relevant mails in top to bottom -order. That means both
newest read and unread messages are in top of the list.
Timo Pietil�
Nathan Tuggy
I think a large part of this apparent discrepancy is the unfortunate bug
that Thunderbird displays upon entering an IMAP folder: it doesn't
auto-scroll until it's done "loading" the folder. (I'm not sure what's
involved in this "loading", but it appears to scale up roughly linearly
with messages -- perhaps reading metadata from disk, or maybe resyncing
with the server?) Anyway, if it would simply scroll as soon as it began
to display the list and had the length available, that would suit me
very well indeed. Bug 497348 has the scoop, if you want to follow
progress on this.
(I personally work around this by, yes, filtering my inbox view, which
shelters me from its worst effects. A similar result can be had, I
suppose, by archiving unused emails.)
Ben Bucksch
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> Not necessarily. If the client automatically scrolls down to the
>> newest mail when opening the folder, you have both requirements met
>> at the same time. And, that happens to be what we do. (By default.)
>
> It isn't what TB does. Maybe that is a bug. When you open TB it
> doesn't show right place of the list.
It does work. However, it only works for *new* mail, not for merely
*unread* mail. There's a difference. Unread mail is bold and the one you
have not opened. New mail is that mail which you have not seen yet, i.e.
where you have not opened the folder yet after it arrived, and it's bold
and has a star/splash icon.
In other words, when a new mail arrives in your account, and you open
its folder for the forst time after it arrived, the thread pane will
jump to that new mail (or the first one), no matter where it is, i.e.
the behaviour I described.
Once you switch to another folder and come back to the previous folder,
it does not jump to that mail anymore (which is now no longer considered
"new" but merely "unread").
I think that there should be a pref so that you can get that jump
behaviour also for unread mail. I'd probably use that pref.
Ben
Randy & Grace
wrote:
> On 2010-04-12 07:08, Randy & Grace wrote:
> > I need to figure out the discrepancy between what ascending sort order
> > apologists are telling me, and what I am actually experiencing. When
> > I open a new install of TB, with IMAP accounts that will be quickly
> > populated with thousands of e-mails, the first thing I see when I open
> > a folder, is OLD, READ, headers. Then I have to keep manually
> > scrolling or jumping down to see what's new again and again, in EVERY
> > folder thereafter. The ascending sort apologists are telling me that
> > by default, with ascending sort, TB just automatically jumps down to
> > the new, unread messages, so they are right there in your face every
> > time.
>
> I think a large part of this apparent discrepancy is the unfortunate bug
> that Thunderbird displays upon entering an IMAP folder: it doesn't
> auto-scroll until it's done "loading" the folder.
Yeah...there may be other issues here as well. I'm hearing now that TB
behavior is set up to jump to *new* (first time you visit folder after
it arrives: a.k.a. *starred*) unread messages only, not ALL unread
messages. So if you come back to a folder that still has unread
messages, it will NOT jump. For me, it NEVER does on a fresh install
with IMAP accounts.
> (I personally work around this by, yes, filtering my inbox view, which
> shelters me from its worst effects. A similar result can be had, I
> suppose, by archiving unused emails.)
Yes, there are a lot of workarounds. So the problem is not a terminal
issue, just a big IRRITANT when you're doing a new install.
Randy & Grace
> On 13.04.2010 07:16, Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
> > Ben Bucksch wrote:
> >> Not necessarily. If the client automatically scrolls down to the
> >> newest mail when opening the folder, you have both requirements met
> >> at the same time. And, that happens to be what we do. (By default.)
>
> > It isn't what TB does. Maybe that is a bug. When you open TB it
> > doesn't show right place of the list.
>
> *unread* mail...
>
> In other words, when a new mail arrives in your account, and you open
> its folder for the forst time after it arrived, the thread pane will
> jump to that new mail (or the first one), no matter where it is, i.e.
> the behaviour I described.
>
> Once you switch to another folder and come back to the previous folder,
> it does not jump to that mail anymore (which is now no longer considered
> "new" but merely "unread").
Then apparently it recognizes imported IMAP folders as having already
been visited, which is why ascending sort SUCKS as a *defualt*.
> I think that there should be a pref so that you can get that jump
> behaviour also for unread mail. I'd probably use that pref.
If it's going to treat imported IMAP folders as having already been
visited, It should be *default*.
geekmaster1
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:35:34 -0400, Ben Bucksch
>
> <ben.bucksch.n...@beonex.com> wrote:
> > On 07.04.2010 16:02, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400, Ben Bucksch
> >> <ben.bucksch.n...@beonex.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> >>>> Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
> >>>> order by default?
>
> >>> bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
> >>> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
>
> >> With newer messages on top, you're still reading the message list from
> >> top to bottom.
>
> > No, that would be in the wrong order. When there's a thread with several
> > or many posts since I last read mail, I need to rest the oldest first.
> > That means I have to read from bottom to top, not from top to bottom as
> > you say.
>
> M2 has this cool thing in thread mode where if there's a reply to a
> thread, the thread jumps up to the top of the list. But unfortunately, if
> sorting by Date in descending order, the reply messages in the thread are
> also sorted by Date in descending order (instead of ascending like
> messages in a forum thread). So, M2 almost has a forum-threading mode.
>
> So, yes, I can understand that situation. But, that just means threading
> should perhaps be better (when threading is on). But, threading isn't on
> by default and that's an advanced setting.
>
>
> > So are they in the default layout, because we're automatically scrolling
> > to the first unread (or new, actually?) message, so what you see is the
> > first new message on top (of the screen, not the scrollable area), and
> > then it progresses down in time order.
>
> Yes, auto-jumping to the first unread is pretty necessary to work around
> new messages not being up top.
>
> OK, so what I'll take from this thread is:
>
> Message lists are sorted in ascending order by default because:
>
> 1. It just seems illogical to not to list oldest messages at top (a) and
> newest messages at bottom (z).
>
> 2. Sorting in descending order screws up threading, *if* you use the
> non-default threading mode.
>
> 3. Ascending order problems with new messages not being up top is worked
> around by the auto-jump behavior.
>
> I disagree with the reasons. But, that's O.K. I just wanted to know why.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> --
> Michael
i agree. is there a way to sort by newest message at the top of thread?
Mohammad Mozib
> On 07.04.2010 12:49, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> > Is there a good reason why Thunderbird sorts by date in ascending
> > order by default?
> Yes, it's more logical: Most languages read from left to right, top to
> bottom. (And languages with read right to left also switch the UI
> around, i.e. folder pane on right, funny enough.)
> Standard8 said, it comes down to preference, and we seem to have a fine
> default.
It's illogical as hell and goes against the design principles of virtually all other fucking mail clients. I just wish Thunderbird would die from Linux.
ISHIKAWA,chiaki
You can click on the date field header of the message pane, and change
the sorting in descending order.
Chiaki
dev-apps-thunder...@alexneumann.realemail.net
That is true that you can change the order by doing that. I end up
needing to do that for each new folder I create. And then I get to
scroll all the way back to the top of said folder.
Perhaps I'm suffering from Baby Duck Syndrome, but I've come to expect
new emails to arrive at the top of my inbox, just like a physical
interdepartmental mail inbox at a cubicle pidgeonhole. That is also the
default on most other popular email clients (Hotmail, Gmail, Outlook,
K-9 Mail, Gmail for mobile)
Thanks all for reading, I <3 Thunderbird
- List Lurker Alex
On 3/30/21 10:41 AM, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
> On 2021/03/30 17:35, Mohammad Mozib wrote:
>
>
> You can click on the date field header of the message pane, and change
> the sorting in descending order.
>
> Chiaki
>
>
The Wanderer
> BLUF: I'd prefer to have the default sort be newest first
>
> That is true that you can change the order by doing that. I end up
> needing to do that for each new folder I create. And then I get to
> scroll all the way back to the top of said folder.
>
> Perhaps I'm suffering from Baby Duck Syndrome, but I've come to
> expect new emails to arrive at the top of my inbox, just like a
> physical interdepartmental mail inbox at a cubicle pidgeonhole. That
> is also the default on most other popular email clients (Hotmail,
> Gmail, Outlook, K-9 Mail, Gmail for mobile)
top-to-bottom, so that the oldest parts of what we've written appear
nearer the top, I expect threads (or, when not sorting by threads,
messages) to appear oldest-to-newest, top-to-bottom. This also
correlates with the fact that I expect quoting to be done either
interleaved-fashion or with the new text below the quoted material, as
I've done here.
I consider the fact that "oldest to newest, top to bottom" is
Thunderbird's default to be one of the good points about Thunderbird,
relative to all of those other mail interfaces (most of which aren't
clients) you cite.
(Some might argue that it's easy enough to change from the default to
what one prefers, and to an extent that's true - but if whenever you
create a new folder, the default is applied to that folder, you're not
going to be happy about needing to make the change yet again. I already
experience this with Thunderbird's default set of columns; I think being
able to override the built-in default with a configured default would be
better than either changing the built-in default or leaving the status
quo.)
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Wayne
> On 2021-03-30 at 13:04,
> dev-apps-thunder...@alexneumann.realemail.net wrote:
>
>> BLUF: I'd prefer to have the default sort be newest first
>>
>> That is true that you can change the order by doing that. I end up
>> needing to do that for each new folder I create. And then I get to
>> scroll all the way back to the top of said folder.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm suffering from Baby Duck Syndrome, but I've come to
>> expect new emails to arrive at the top of my inbox, just like a
>> physical interdepartmental mail inbox at a cubicle pidgeonhole. That
>> is also the default on most other popular email clients (Hotmail,
>> Gmail, Outlook, K-9 Mail, Gmail for mobile)
I can't comment on other mail clients except iphone, and I'm not
promoting top vs bottom, but on my Iphone is it is not newest on top.
> I think being
> able to override the built-in default with a configured default would be
> better than either changing the built-in default or leaving the status
> quo.)
I'm curious how this came to be discussed on a developer channel because
it doesn't sound like a developer subject. It's a simple enhancement
request which already exists at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175502
WaltS48
I sort by ascending for some accounts and descending for others.
Like the default threading which is unthreaded, and also illogical to
myself and Spock, it can be changed to the users preference.
--
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
Paul Mindolovich
It's now April 11, 2022, and I installed Thunderbird new a couple of weeks ago, and am now just starting to use it more, and I notice the same problem... - that by DEFAULT it sorts with the NEWEST emails AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW - rather than at the top. Most people want their newest emails at the TOP of the window.
Sure, I know can click into the 'View' settings, select 'Sort by' and then 'Date' with 'Descending' selected - but that's for ONE FOLDER.
SO....... the question is: How does one set this setting - 'GLOBALLY' ??? - so that ALL folders sort by DATE / DESCENDING ???
Huh... Go figure... That there may be users that want ALL of their folders to sort the SAME WAY - with the most recent emails - at the TOP. Wow... So strange. So odd...
Jeezuz... I can't believe that this is still an issue and that it hasn't been resolved by Mozilla's developers. Holy Moly. Really frustrating.
Ariaan
I'm not trying to sound salty, but this has been my personal experience.
Because I'm giving Thunderbird a chance again... installing it ... again and learning that the default settings, STILL make no sense.
And today after 15yrs I decided to look up why this weird decision still holds today.
Turns out multiple people have shared their thoughts about it, it's just dismissed "It's good enough".
Clearly, the people making these choices, never sat down next to other people and have to keep explaining "I know you where used to that, but here it goes a little bit different". (it's a lot of those little bits btw)
Though, currently I think the project might have bigger concerns than their default settings at the moment. Because the UI is so dated at this point and not intuitive to configure, or matches any style of the OS you're actually using. It's jarring, tiny on high resolution panels, no regard for usability and as I learned today after I read some of the replies, an incredibly stubborn team.
It's e-mail... not a an error-log. Newest result on top please.
I'm just disappointed.
Regards,
Ariaan
Lucas Sequeira
but now I have to scroll all the messages up for all folders, even folder I had not opened before... :(
Dmitry Kagan
Even though I also disagree with the decision to continue making ascending sort default, at least there is a setting to change it.
However, when using threads, there is no way to change it to descending, ascending is the only option.
This is even more mind blowing, because if I am keeping the thread collapsed and a new message arrives, I want to be able to instantly view it.
Without the need to expand the thread and scroll down tens, sometimes hundreds of messages, each time.
I just installed Thunderbird 115 and finally, after many years, we have a multi-line message pane view, i.e. the Cards view.
Please add an option to view mail message threads in descending order!
This will be another huge step forward for Thunderbird's usability and relevancy.
Thanks