I would second this.He already did what GOG said "would be difficult" what they did not do until now. Give this man a job and therefore make the GOG site more attractive. Maybe we should open a poll. :)

If GOG hired adaliabooks, they'd be able to tell him what to do... so he'd probably just end up working on Galaxy in some way. :-P
A public API might help more.

I assume that you refer to the Legacy Shelf, and manual sorting, with the first part of your post. What percent of GOG's user base do you think use it? Don't forget two things:
1. A (very) large portion of GOG's userbase don't frequent the forum, so are not even aware AF exits and offers this option.
2. AF works only on the site, so none of the GOG Galaxy users, even if forum regulars, make use of it, and I'd hazard a guess, or care for these features.

Same goes for BE. So, the main issue is not how difficult it is for GOG to offer these features natively, it's that it's not cost efficient for them to do it. And this is the reason I can't see GOG offering adaliabooks, or Barefoot_Monkey, a paying job for what they're doing. In spite them doing a terrific job, and providing a great service.

MaGog is quite different, and would have a bit more of a chance if GOG cared enough to improve both their catalogue search function and their update notification system. But neither seems to be anywhere (high?) on their TO DO list.

JMO

You are probably correct with everything you said HypersomniacLive. (and yes, I was talking about legacy shelfes, manual sort and sort oder in general).

To be honest, as much as I'd love to work for Gog, I'm not sure. I run my own business right now, quite successfully, and I love it. I if I could work for Gog around that, then sure. But to give up that and go back to working for someone else 9 to 5?

No, I don't think I would.

But Hyper and plagren have basically already covered the issues there; if they did give me a job it would be working on whatever they felt needed doing (likely Galaxy or whatever else they've got up their sleeves for the website) and the improvements I've made are probably not financially viable.

I started work on this script (the combined one) in September last year (and had worked on the three separate ones that predated it for a while before that), while development has slowed a bit in the last few months I'd say I've done at least 20 hours a week average (and a lot more at the start), that's 800+ hours of work.
Even at the minimum wage in Poland that's £1,896. And I imagine a web designer / programmer is likely to get at least £10 an hour if not much more (I'm sure someone who works in the field might be able to give a more accurate guess). With that assumption you're looking at £8000+ of work.

And from Gog's point of view that's just not worth it. If you add in proper debugging and testing, and all the little server side things you could do to make what I've done better and more efficient, you're probably looking at 3 - 6 months of work for a full time paid programmer... for a company that is already clearly severely undermanned that's a lot of time (and money) to spend on what amounts in most cases to purely cosmetic options.

Give me time ;)
Once winter hits and work quiets down a bit (assuming it does) I might take a proper crack at implementing script support in Galaxy.




And now for something completely different!
There's been a slight bug in the wishlist priorities system (brought to light by MaGog and mrkgnao) and someone's username hasn't synced correctly.
Anyone using the wishlist priority sync function please see here for details:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/anyone_recently_used_my_script_to_sync_their_wishlist_priorities

I'm in no hurry, not a GOG Galaxy user. ;-)

When exporting my manual library sort order, the export is always listed in the game id order. In otherwords, it's almost useless for actually sorting the titles because I can't list them in alphabetical order or anything else.... Really is quite frustrating as I recently had to reset my browser settings and lost my manual sort order.

Hmmm. It just comes out however it comes out at the moment (the intention was not for it to be human sortable, just that it was a possibility) but I could probably run a sort on it before it's exported and see if it sticks...

The sort works mostly, but I'm still getting scrambled results. If I resort to "Title" sort, for instance, the end of my library ends up in the middle when I reset the sorting via the control panel. EDIT: Actually, there's two sections where games from the end were picked up and thrown to the middle. This is with all games displayed. END EDIT

And my games were definitely in a different enough order that moving them one at a time through the whole mess is not an insignificant feat at this moment. Especially since I can't drag an item but so far down the page. I can zoom way out to maximize the number of rows I can move, but that's about it.

EDIT2: Now resetting manual sorting causes the same chunks of games (last 26 to the very beginning or near the beginning, the next 100 before that to near the middle) when resetting sorting to "By title" (disable manual sorting, click by title, reset manual sorting, enable manual sorting; resetting again does not change the order). I have 427 games (plus 11 hidden).

That shouldn't still be a problem... :/
Are you on the latest script version?
And what browser are you on?

And is this something that has happened recently (ie during the Summer Sale) or always happened? As if it's the former it might just be Gog's extra server load messing things up.

When I reset my browser, I did not manually update my script. However the version number in the command console seems right, and the options from the newer versions are there. I'm also not prompted to update (and right now I'm not at my PC to be able to tell you if it is working or the actual version numbers). I don't know if this is an ongoing problem because I don't reset my sorting order very often. I only tried now because the default sort went wonky. It could be GOGside. I have no way of knowing personally, and no way to troubleshoot right this moment. Just reporting my findings as completely as possible. This is with Firefox 47.

No problem. Thanks for the details.
It's quite possible that it could be a Gog server load issue (if the requests take longer to return it can cause them to return out of order, even though it shouldn't happen as I have fail-safes in place) so I might just put it on the back burner until after the sale.
I'll see if I can do anything about the exported sort order not being in order so that you can manually edit it though.

Wow. that's awesome. You don't have to go out of your way for me though. You have been most gracious in lending your skills to the community.

Have Grandia II from your wishlist for just being AWESOME.

It's alright, I really don't mind. It shouldn't be too much work to find a way to sort it before exporting :)

Thank you :)

Ok. Heres what I find:
AF 1.5.7 released 18/05/2016
Firefox 47.0
Windows 7 SP1
View: all games
Legacy
Own 430 games not hidden

Resetting sort order with Sort by: Title selected and no page refresh exports a sort order with the following numbers. There is no 200-299 and no 500+. The games skipped are between 200 and 299 (they seem to be fed to the end of the pack with new higher sortby numbers)

0-199 and 300-499

After refreshing the page and exporting again (no second reset), I get 0-429. But the first 30 listed are the last 30 of my library alphabetically (should start at 400-429).

Then 229-332 are the next to last 103 (so a total of 133 games are misplaced sorting solely by alphabetically) games in my library, however they are supposed to start at 296 instead of 229. If the games were listed in sort order on the export printout, this would be trivial. But as it stands it requires a lot of time-consuming search and replace to get the objects I want. I don't know what's causing the issue, but I hope my information is helpful in identifying it when you get the chance to see it. As it is I use notepad++ to search and add line breaks to make managing the document far easier.