It is impossible to tell how many times I tried to filter out something in Jira only to have everything since before the times or absolutely nothing and needed to scratch that and go back to the defaults. Or hunt down the email with an exact link to the issue.
Craft: “to make or produce with care, skill, or ingenuity.” It means to make something carefully, the same thing done when crafting a search query. That’s the way I meant it anyway. There is nothing particularly difficult about searching in Shortcut. You combine a set of available filters to make a composed filter the same way you search anything. The difference is that in JIRA, there are about 5 different ways to search and the operators are not always obvious.
What it looks like is you keep defending a shitty UX/UI by trying to justify it with inapplicable examples.
> You combine a set of available filters to make a composed filter the same way you search anything
This isn't even remotely similar to "anyone who uses a search engine, tries to find an email". Which brings us back to the original complaint, quote: "It's filters make no sense."
If you "have to combine/craft filters to create a composite filter that you then use to search", you've failed. In exactly the same ways that Jira fails at this task.
I don’t care if you don’t use Shortcut. Use Linear instead, for example, since apparently a lot of people like it in this thread. I had never heard of it before. Main thing is, don’t pretend like JIRA is the only reasonable option because it just isn’t (not saying you were necessarily, but that is what I have a problem with people doing.)
I never said whether I was or wasn't using Shortcut.
> Use Linear instead, for example, since apparently
I never said whether or not I was looking for an alternative
> don’t pretend like JIRA is the only reasonable option
I never said anything about JIRA except in the following context: "If you <make things complicated>, you've failed. In exactly the same ways that Jira fails at this task." And you are the one who actually mentioned JIRA first.
So how about: you stop pretending I said or implied something I never did?
You accused me of defending something. What actually happened is I asked a series of clarification questions ("Filters make no sense?", "What flow?"), neither of which was answered by the way. Again, I have no dog in whether or not you use Shortcut. So I am not defending anything.
>I never said anything about JIRA except in the following context
That's exactly why I ended my last comment the way I did ("not saying you were necessarily").
> I never said whether or not I was looking for an alternative
Why are you commenting on this thread? The whole point was to suggest an alternative. You never even suggested another way filters could work. As far as I can tell, the mathematical definition of a filter is that it's composed of sub-filters. So please either admit you're a negativity-spouting troll or contribute something positive.
I responded to this statement: "You craft the filters, so if that makes no sense it’s because you didn’t craft the right thing".
No. No one in their right mind wants to "craft filters". If you require people to "craft filters" or "combine a set of available filters to make a composed filter", you've failed. It doesn't mater if it's Shortcut, or Linera, or JIRA, or any of the dozens of JIRA replacements/wannabes.
That's the thing I'm responding to. An all your examples and allusions only serve to show that you don't understand this simple fact.
For people to want to "combine/craft filters" these filters have to be immediate, smart, autocompleting, and properly predictive. As an example, Youtrack[1] shows how to do that more-or-less properly (though it has other issues). Shortcut can't even complete available states when you type `state:` into the search box.
> As far as I can tell, the mathematical definition of a filter is that it's composed of sub-filters.
Literally no one using project management software cares about mathematical definition of filter. Not a single soul.
> No. No one in their right mind wants to "craft filters".
You should strongly question this assumption because I am a living counterexample. Before I discovered this tool, I wanted to be able to write the filters so badly I even started to develop a tool that allowed this (called Infinitix) that provided only one basic thing: ability to apply filters on a single list of tickets, and then save or share that filter to other members of your org. Regardless of whether you think "you've failed" if you develop this, I'm sure photographers thought the same thing about Photoshop when it was created. (No, this product never fully materialized, luckily I didn't have to build it because I found out about the existence of Shortcut.) It would have been the simplest task management system possible, in a way.
I don't care if the autocompletions are there, what I care about is having control instead of my system administrator or manager having control, and being able to run whatever query at whatever time I want to. In other words, I want to control the tool rather than it control me, and I also want a tool (instead of TODO.txt, the anti-tool approach to task management).
`state:unscheduled` works just fine, I tested it before writing this comment. There's no limit to the variety of analogies you can dismiss if you simply allow yourself to declare them inapplicable. As for control, it sounds good to me. Honestly, not being able to run reporting is a feature from a developer's perspective.
> `state:unscheduled` works just fine, I tested it before writing this comment.
You clearly didn't understand what I showed you. Watch the video again.
> There's no limit to the variety of analogies you can dismiss if you simply allow yourself to declare them inapplicable
Of course. Analogies never work they way you think they work. At best analogies are dubious claims that need to be proven. You equated Shortcuts to Photoshop, and that analogy is not even tenuous. It's false.
> As for control, it sounds good to me. Honestly, not being able to run reporting is a feature
WHo said anything about reporting? Oh wait, no one, except you.
No one said anything about autocompletion either, yet here we are. I'm a bit done here since you are one of these people who refuse to use analogies to inform their thinking. Suffice it to say, many billions of people over the years have found analogies to be a useful endeavor, and nothing about this particular situation is any different. If you really need it spelled out to you, Douglas Hofstadter has a good talk about analogy as a basis of cognition on YouTube.
> No one said anything about autocompletion either, yet here we are.
We were talking about filters, and this is directly related to the filter functionality that you're so intent on defending.
> I'm a bit done here since you are one of these people who refuse to use analogies to inform their thinking.
I don't refuse to use analogies. However, I refuse to use false analogies, and I also refuse to use only analogies to inform my thinking. I prefer facts over analogies.
> many billions of people over the years have found analogies to be a useful endeavor
And once again you're veering into some completely unrelated tangent that no one is talking about.
> Douglas Hofstadter has a good talk about analogy
If only you had the will and comprehension to keep with the topic at hand without resorting to inventing arguments for other people, overusing false and inapplicable analogies etc.
That's where you've lost nearly all the people.
Who in their right mind crafts filters. What does this even mean?