[Rivet] [Rivet-svn] r2970 - trunk/bin

[Hendrik Hoeth]

Hi Frank,

> >Honest question: Why do you prefer this over the old sorting?
> 
> So I had two goals in mind:
> Have newer analyses at the top, and move the MC_* analyses (and as a
> side-effect all unpublished analyses) to the bottom.
> 
> Now you would prefer to have the analyses sorted by experiment? I
> would argue sorting them by date makes more sense?

I don't think we need a finer time sorting than by year, because that's
the time scale of publication writeup and approval scatter and we don't
need finer bins than the intrinsic resolution. If we therefore sort by
year rather than by spires ID we get the MC_ analyses at the bottom and
all the real stuff in chronological order. That would already be an
improvement, I think.

Nevertheless, when I search for a specific measurement, I know what
experiment it is, but I might not be sure whether it's 2008 or 2009.
That's why I would prefer sorting by experiment first and then by year.
No special treatments for analyses without spires ID, because I don't
want to think whether it's the Ncharged distribution of Nicollo's
analysis (just a conf note) or the pT distribution of the same analysis
(published paper with Spires ID) -- I want to see them at the same
place. If you like you can still put MC_* at the bottom, I don't care
about those.

The question about descending or ascending is of minor importance to me.
I prefer ascending, because my brain counts "1, 2, 3" and "a, b, c" and
not "3, 2, 1" and "z, y, x, w, v". But again, not strong feelings in
this question.

Cheers,

   Hendrik

-- 
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have
a reputation for subtlety.    -- Isaac Asimov