Fiverr Community Forum

Sorting Gigs shouldn't affect how many are shown

When browsing Gigs by category, changing how they are sorted drastically affects their quantity. Choosing different criteria to sort by, however, should only change the order of Gigs, and not the number, right? It seems as the cache expiry time is a bit too long, as the displayed numbers of Gigs of the same category are often two orders of magnitude away from each other. This does not seem right. Below you can see an example of how the number of Gigs varies depending on how they are sorted.

Sorting by best selling: only 14 Gigs :slightly_frowning_face:
Sorting by newest arrivals: 161 Gigs :thinking:
Sorting by “recommended”: 1043 Gigs! :exploding_head:

Below are some screenshots of the issue (which are just a single image because “sorry, new users can only put one image into a post” :roll_eyes:).


I don’t think so.

Not all best selling gigs will fall under recommended or new arrivals. And new arrivals wouldn’t be in the bestselling.

For example: when you are shopping clothes
It shows 100 items in total
If you choose a skirt it will be 10 items
If you choose another category with swimming suites it will be 6 etc.

The same situation here. You chose certain category and they showed only gigs that fall under this category (not all of them in different order)

1 Like

Hmm… then the wording is strange, to say the least. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ‘sort’ is a synonym of ‘order’ or ‘put into order’ (and nowhere does it mention removing things); hence, if this behaviour is intended, the expression ‘sort by’ should be replaced by one that better conveys the meaning of the drop-down menu, such as ‘filter by’ or ‘only show’. (I’ll change the title of this topic to better reflect this issue)

No it’s not. But are we really going to argue about English language here?

Obviously it’s not a big matter or problem for others even to pay attention.

But as you were talking about Cambridge dictionary and here is what it says. Which means if you “sort by skirts” it will show only skirts, if you sort by “bestselling” it will show only bestselling.
Otherwise how you would know when bestselling category was over and it’s already started a new category?

But if you “sort by alphabetical order” then it will shuffle your list in alphabetical order without removing things. there are different “sort by” and it depends on the ending of the phrase.

Anyway I find it silly to argue about such a small thing.

image image

I have to admit I’m not completely convinced (see this question on StackExchange), but, yes, this is definitely too little of a problem to be discussed about :grin:

If it’s a bug, and I think it might be, you could report it to support as a support ticket.
I think changing the sort order should only rearrange them while not having a lot fewer in some “sort” orders.

eg. sorting by “best selling” should put the best selling at the top of the list and the least selling at the bottom of the list. Sorting by “new arrivals” should put the newest at the top of the list and the oldest at the bottom of the list I think.

If they only want to show some of the gigs rather than basically all of them, they should change the wording to something other than sort. eg. “view recommended gigs” rather than “sort by recommended”.


But where those dictionaries say one definition is “a category of things…” they’re not using the same use of the term Fiverr is using which is the other definition which is “to put things into an order or separate them by into groups”. But Fiverr shouldn’t be reducing the amount in the list a lot (or at all really) just by selecting to put them into “best selling” order.

But as you were talking about Cambridge dictionary and here is what it says. Which means if you “sort by skirts” it will show only skirts

I don’t think it would because the “sort” where it says “a group of things that are the same” is a noun rather than a verb. So they’re talking about a type of thing rather than performing a sort there. If you perform a sort, you change the order of things (or split them into different groups), but in either of those, the total number of things hasn’t been reduced.

If you wanted to reduce a list so it only showed things of a certain type, that would be a filter rather than a sort really (filtering everything other than the specified type). So if they wanted to reduce the number of things shown it should really be in the “refine results” section of a search rather than having the “sort by” reduce the list.

1 Like

Haha, I had noticed, but I didn’t really want to start a heated argument with @mariashtelle1 so I pretended I hadn’t :sweat_smile:. Anyways, yes, I’ll probably report it to support.

I’ve just contacted CS, they said they will forward the issue to the developers, as it does seem to be wrong.

1 Like