Error in SQL-Syntax by Sorting Pics

[diskusforum]

Hello,

if I start sorting the pics by rated or anything else than the default, I got this error-message:

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'DESC
LIMIT 0,20' at line 8
Datei: /var/www/web44/web/Sources/Load.php(2219) : eval()'d code
Zeile: 6560

[SMFHacks]

What SMF version?
And is when you do the sorting dropdown in a category or when stetting up a category and setting the sorting order?

[SMFHacks]

Fixed in SMF Gallery 4.0.9

[diskusforum]

Hello,

me again...

I installed 4.0.9a and now I'm able to sort by date, most viewn, most commended an most rated.

But there still seems to be a bug in the query for most rated!
If I start the query most rated, I got these results:

name	points	5 points	4 points	3 points	2 points	1 points	ratings	average
"Points"	63	11	2	-	-	-	13	4,85
"Gruppe"	33	4	1	3	-	-	9	3,67
"Kalender 2013a"	53	5	6	1	-	1	13	4,08
"Kalender 2013b"	44	5	1	5	-	-	11	4,00

Normaly the ranking should be:
1.) "Points"
2.) "Kalender 2013a"
3.) "Kalender 2013b"
4.) "Gruppe"

Please check the query (or post the code) and fix the problem (or tell me, which php-file includes this strange query).

Thanks!

[SMFHacks]

Ratings are on the following calculation
(rating / totalratings ) AS ratingaverage



The query is themes/default/gallery.template.php

In the function template_image_listing

[diskusforum]

I changed the code to

Code: [Select]

case 'mostrated': $sortby = 'rating';
break;
Now it works as it should!

[SMFHacks]

That will just by overall score though and not the average

[diskusforum]

Your code also don't sort by the average, or why is the ranking:
1.) 4,85
2.) 3,67
3.) 4,08
4.) 4,00

Neither by the result, nor by the average there is a logical result for the second place...

[Jonas1975]

The sort by rating is not that simple.

I think the sort now is being made by Rating Average and Number of Ratings.

If you sort only by Rating Average, a new photo that it's given a 5 stars, will be immediately at the top of the Top Rated, which doesn't make sense at all against other photos that had much more ratings given.

I think the best was to sort by the number of ratings given for each classification (nš of 5 stars, nš of 4 stars, etc...). So a pic with 2 votes of 5 stars and 1 vote of 4 stars would still be ahead of one with only 1 vote of 5 stars.