The list of interesting tags would be more usable if it was ordered alphabetically.

Apologies if this suggestion has already been made, I couldn't find it (this is the closest, but not quite the same).

share|improve this question
YES YES YES !! Any hope we'll see this feature sometime soon, SO team ??? –  marc_s Mar 19 '12 at 16:26
add comment

2 Answers

If this is implemented, it should be an optional feature, not automatic. I have my interesting tags sorted in more-or-less the order I want them, more interesting first, even though I had to delete and re-add tags to get it that way.

share|improve this answer
Optional features are always good –  TheTXI Sep 25 '09 at 17:23
Fair enough. My interesting tags are a mess because I've been accidentally deleting them and then re-adding them due to this other problem (…). –  Dan Dyer Sep 25 '09 at 17:43
What do you get from having them ordered how you like them? They won't get highlighted stronger than other tags, will they? –  foraidt Nov 16 '09 at 11:29
It just makes it easier to find my 5-6 favorites among the interesting tags, having them up front. The listing isn't very kind to the eyes if you have a lot of tags in there, it can be easy to miss things in the visual noise. –  ベレアー アダム Nov 16 '09 at 12:49
Oh, I see. The way I use those tags is just for highlighting. I.e. I add a tag and then forget about it. If I understand correcty, you frequently click on those tags to show questions using them. In that case I support your proposal. –  foraidt Nov 16 '09 at 13:33
add comment

Alphabetical sorting should be the default, because it makes it easy to find the tags you're looking for.

As Adam suggests, there could be a switch to disable the automatic sorting, and possibly even a method to easily re-order the list and save that custom order.

Adam's manual sort sounds like a really, really ugly work-around, but one that works well. Still, it can't be the intended use -- if there's a new tag created which is very interesting to me, I would have to delete every single tag and re-add them all again, manually. Surely a more elegant solution can be provided.

share|improve this answer
I suspect that currently they are unsorted, and the query outputs them in their insertion order. In other words, I cannot believe that they are sorted by insertion time as a feature. I just can't. –  MPelletier Apr 9 '10 at 13:13
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .