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

[Frank Siegert]

>>> 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 side-effect all unpublished analyses) to the bottom.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.

So except for moving the MC_* to the bottom everything would stay as it 
was, correct? I guess I could live with that, although my use case is 
rarely to look for plots from a certain analysis, but through all plots 
on the page and then I typically want to see the newest (most 
relevant/luminosity) ones first, no matter which experiment.

If I understand Andy correctly then his preference was pro sorting by 
experiment though (?) (and nobody else has voiced their opinion) so I 
guess I'll have to give in to the democracy/meritocracy in that case ;-)

Cheers,
Frank