Item ranking system?

Item ranking system?

[Ross A. Laird]

I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.

Suggestions most welcome.

Cheers.

Ross


-- 
Ross A. Laird, PhD
Chair, Department of Creative Writing
Faculty, Interdisciplinary Expressive Arts
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Re: Item ranking system?

[Ian Barton]

Ross A. Laird wrote:
> I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
> particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
> Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
> need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
> 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
> 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
> prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
> notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
> can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
> with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
> looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
> flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
> 
> Suggestions most welcome.
> 

What about making them all TODO items and using the priority filed for 
sorting. I don't use priorities myself, so I am not sure if you can 
change A, B, C, etc to 1, 2, 3.

Ian.

Re: Item ranking system?

[Matthew Lundin]

Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:

> Ross A. Laird wrote:
>> I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
>> particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
>> Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
>> need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
>> 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
>> 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
>> prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
>> notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
>> can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
>> with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
>> looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
>> flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
>
> What about making them all TODO items and using the priority filed for
> sorting. I don't use priorities myself, so I am not sure if you can
> change A, B, C, etc to 1, 2, 3.

The easiest way to set custom priorities is to do so in the buffer. You
could simply add the following line to the top of the relevant file:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
#+PRIORITIES: 1 5 3
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

This line sets 1 as the highest priority, 5 as the lowest priority, and
3 as the default priority.

Then, once you have added priorities such as the following...

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* A list
** [#5] Some item
** [#4] Another item
** [#2] Yet another item
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

...you can sort them by calling org-sort (C-c ^ p) on the heading. (C-c ^
P will sort them in reverse order.)

The other option here would be to create a "ranking" property for each
item with predefined entry options. You would still be able to sort the
list, but you could also view it as columns and capture it in a table
using dynamic blocks. (Of course, you could also display the priorities
above in column view.)

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
#+PROPERTY: RANKING_ALL 1 2 3 4 5
#+COLUMNS: %40ITEM %10RANKING

* Some item
  :PROPERTIES:
  :RANKING:  3
  :END:
* Another item
  :PROPERTIES:
  :RANKING:  1
  :END:
* Yet another item
  :PROPERTIES:
  :RANKING:  5
  :END:
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Best,
Matt

Re: Item ranking system?

[Ross A. Laird]

Matthew Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:

> Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:
>
>> Ross A. Laird wrote:
>>> I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
>>> particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
>>> Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
>>> need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
>>> 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
>>> 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
>>> prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
>>> notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
>>> can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
>>> with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
>>> looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
>>> flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
>>
>> What about making them all TODO items and using the priority filed for
>> sorting. I don't use priorities myself, so I am not sure if you can
>> change A, B, C, etc to 1, 2, 3.
>
> The easiest way to set custom priorities is to do so in the buffer. You
> could simply add the following line to the top of the relevant file:
>
> #+PRIORITIES: 1 5 3
>
> This line sets 1 as the highest priority, 5 as the lowest priority, and
> 3 as the default priority.
>
> Then, once you have added priorities such as the following...
>
> * A list
> ** [#5] Some item
> ** [#4] Another item
> ** [#2] Yet another item
>
> ...you can sort them by calling org-sort (C-c ^ p) on the heading. (C-c ^
> P will sort them in reverse order.)
>
> The other option here would be to create a "ranking" property for each
> item with predefined entry options. You would still be able to sort the
> list, but you could also view it as columns and capture it in a table
> using dynamic blocks. (Of course, you could also display the priorities
> above in column view.)
>
> #+PROPERTY: RANKING_ALL 1 2 3 4 5
> #+COLUMNS: %40ITEM %10RANKING
>
> * Some item
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :RANKING:  3
>   :END:
> * Another item
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :RANKING:  1
>   :END:
> * Yet another item
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :RANKING:  5
>   :END:
>
> Best,
> Matt
>

Thanks for all the helpful responses. This list is great.

Cheers.

Ross

-- 
Ross A. Laird, PhD
Chair, Department of Creative Writing
Faculty, Interdisciplinary Expressive Arts
Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Re: Re: Item ranking system?

[Samuel Wales]

One thing to think about is global vs. local.

Global priorities (or properties -- I am not talking about
implementation here) are sorted in the agenda.  Thus an A in an
unimportant part of the hierarchy is the same as an A in an important
part.

Local priorites are just for siblings.  They are for sorting in the
outline.  You don't want to confuse that with global priorities.  It
is very useful.

Inheritance is different and IMO a can of worms.  For me, it's not
worth the complexity so far.  It would be a feature of global
priorities if it were implemented.  It makes no sense for local
priorities unless you decide on exheritance.  (Min, mean, max, median,
sum, and other schemes are possible, but probably not worth the
complexity.)

But I wanted to point out that sorting siblings requires a different
priority space than sorting in the agenda.

IMO it would be great as something like

  - #[A] for global A (this is the current syntax)
  - #[,A] for local A (ignored by the agenda)
  - #[A,A] for both global A and local A

so that you can directly see the local priority on the headlines just
as you do now with global priorities,
but to implement local priorities without changing org, you can use
properties or tags.

Just stuff to think about or ignore.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:55, Ross A. Laird<ross@rosslaird.info> wrote:
> Matthew Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:
>
>> Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ross A. Laird wrote:
>>>> I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
>>>> particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
>>>> Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
>>>> need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
>>>> 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
>>>> 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
>>>> prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
>>>> notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
>>>> can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
>>>> with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
>>>> looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
>>>> flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
>>>
>>> What about making them all TODO items and using the priority filed for
>>> sorting. I don't use priorities myself, so I am not sure if you can
>>> change A, B, C, etc to 1, 2, 3.
>>
>> The easiest way to set custom priorities is to do so in the buffer. You
>> could simply add the following line to the top of the relevant file:
>>
>> #+PRIORITIES: 1 5 3
>>
>> This line sets 1 as the highest priority, 5 as the lowest priority, and
>> 3 as the default priority.
>>
>> Then, once you have added priorities such as the following...
>>
>> * A list
>> ** [#5] Some item
>> ** [#4] Another item
>> ** [#2] Yet another item
>>
>> ...you can sort them by calling org-sort (C-c ^ p) on the heading. (C-c ^
>> P will sort them in reverse order.)
>>
>> The other option here would be to create a "ranking" property for each
>> item with predefined entry options. You would still be able to sort the
>> list, but you could also view it as columns and capture it in a table
>> using dynamic blocks. (Of course, you could also display the priorities
>> above in column view.)
>>
>> #+PROPERTY: RANKING_ALL 1 2 3 4 5
>> #+COLUMNS: %40ITEM %10RANKING
>>
>> * Some item
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>   :RANKING:  3
>>   :END:
>> * Another item
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>   :RANKING:  1
>>   :END:
>> * Yet another item
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>   :RANKING:  5
>>   :END:
>>
>> Best,
>> Matt
>>
>
> Thanks for all the helpful responses. This list is great.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Ross
>
> --
> Ross A. Laird, PhD
> Chair, Department of Creative Writing
> Faculty, Interdisciplinary Expressive Arts
> Kwantlen Polytechnic University
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>



-- 
Myalgic encephalomyelitis is causing death and severe suffering.
Conflicts of interest are destroying research.  You can get the
disease at any time and die from it.  Do science and
justice matter to you?  http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

Re: Item ranking system?

[Nick Dokos]

Ross A. Laird <ross@rosslaird.info> wrote:

> 
> I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
> particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
> Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
> need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
> 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
> 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
> prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
> notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
> can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
> with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
> looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
> flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
> 

Properties, I think: attach a "ranking" property to each item. Even if
there is no built-in to sort the items by ranking (and there might very well
be - I just don't know), it should be fairly easy to use the property
API to write a sort.

Cheers,
Nick

Re: Item ranking system?

[Nick Dokos]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Ross A. Laird <ross@rosslaird.info> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'm sure there are many ways in org to accomplish my goal with this
> > particular project, which is to create a ranking system for items.
> > Here's the situation: I have about 200 items that I am evaluating. I
> > need each item to have a title, a tag, a note, and a ranking from 0 to
> > 5. Then, I need to be able to sort the items by rank, with items ranked
> > 5 at the top. I know that I can do this using tables in org, but I
> > prefer the flexibility of headings (some of the items might have long
> > notes attached to them, or links, or whatever). Also, I don't think I
> > can tag individual cells in a table, or operate on cells the way I can
> > with headings in org (move, refile, show and hide, etc.). So, I'm
> > looking for something that will allow me to have the best of worlds:
> > flexibility as with headings, and numerical sorting as with table cells.
> > 
> 
> Properties, I think: attach a "ranking" property to each item. Even if
> there is no built-in to sort the items by ranking (and there might very well
> be - I just don't know), it should be fairly easy to use the property
> API to write a sort.
> 

... and, of course, there *is* a built-in: org-sort with the R option
for SORTING-TYPE.