Hmm...

Since I joined after the numbering option was altered I cannot say I understand how difficult it is to count from one to ten and arrange the cels accordingly. I don't wish to seen obtuse, but perhaps you can explain it somemore. In theory, if one chose to display say three cels per row and a total of six or even nine per page, the only way (that I can think of) someone could screw it up was if they did not know how to count. Going left to right, first column equals one, two and three, repeat for second column. Seems pretty sensible to me. ^_^

Is there anyway to retest this feature for people who wish to use it vs. the current press up and down feature?

Personally, I find it somewhat unsettling whenever I update something the ordering of the cels get redone. =(

Is there a more effective way of maintaining cel organization that you can recommend? Thanks!

I think i read somewhere on this message board that he had fixed it so that when you do update a cel, that it doesn't put it back at the top.

I used it recently and it seemed to work. I don't know if it has changed since a week or so ago though.

I usually have trouble between 5 and 6 when I have to switch hands, but the cel ordering thing *should* be fixed. The order should count across. If you had 3 per row and 9 on a page, it should look like...

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Second column is cel #4, not cel number 2.1. It's really just a one dimension list, *not* like:

1.1 1.2 1.3
2.1 2.2 2.3 (note: does *not* work like this)
3.1 3.2 3.3

That would be too hard to implement, and something would probably break if someone wanted to turn that into 2 cels per row.

If it's still not working like that, then please let me know since I had thought I fixed it. To give you an idea of why it took so long to fix: the bug was that if you had deleted a cel, then looked in your trash can, then edited that cel in the trash, and changed it's series heading, then restored it, THEN the ordering would be corrupted. That was a tough one.

It's very possible that I may have missed some other way to corrupt the ordering.


jn