Explain the problem you see
If multiple values are selected in a field used to group-by (say Field:Type, Value: PodCast & Video are selected) - that node should show up under PodCAST and under Video in the group-by Type View option. Or at least have the option to show it in both places. I'm told there is a use case for it not to show up in both places.
Why is this a problem?
The resulting group-by list / table can be misleading. In the above example, when you group by TYPE, it won't show any video. Thus, it would be logical to think you have nothing in that category - when in fact, you do - it's just showing up under PODCAST as Video was the second selection.
I have several such sorts in the FAQ Slack workspace. And if people are looking only for videos, they will not find that one. This is especially true of my "TOPIC" group-by as any Video or Article will probably cover many topics.
Suggest a solution
If a group-by field has multiple values, enable allowing the node to show in all selected values in a group-by view option.
5 Comments
@Dee was there any specific discussion about that in Slack? Could you provide a link to it?
Here is the link to my origianl post in "feature request" https://tanacommunity.slack.com/archives/C02DAJB4XTM/p1676306087845289
And Yes, seeing it in EVERY group is exactly what I'm asking for and for it not to only consider the first node in the group-by field but all of them.
If I could cast another vote for this, I would! I really agree that groups need to respect nodes with multiple options.
I agree, this is one of the main features I use, and it is very misleading when the (2nd or 3rd) selections show up in the group by view, but it is empty without any association. And then I have to go hunt down the item, which is not easy because I have to go through all the items or create a separate search field.
This makes it really hard to parse long supertags. In my opinion, grouping by tags is the best way to do this, but most have multiple tags. It's also confusing which one it would show up for (appears to be the first only).