Bug 456542

Summary: Add to Places should add items above the Trash
Product: [Applications] dolphin Reporter: Daniel <code>
Component: generalAssignee: Dolphin Bug Assignee <dolphin-bugs-null>
Status: RESOLVED INTENTIONAL    
Severity: normal CC: felixernst, kfm-devel
Priority: NOR    
Version: 22.04.1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: Fedora RPMs   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:

Description Daniel 2022-07-10 09:55:25 UTC 
STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1.  Right-click on any folder not already present in Places and select Add to Places.

OBSERVED RESULT
The folder is added to the bottommost position in Places below the Trash item.

EXPECTED RESULT
The folder should appear at the bottom of the list, but above the Trash item (when present). The user’s curated places are more important than the Trash. 

SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS
Linux/KDE Plasma: Fedora Linux 36
KDE Plasma Version: 5.25.2
KDE Frameworks Version: 5.94.0
Qt Version: 5.15.3

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
GNOME Files avoids this problem by having the user’s places separated from the default places (and the Trash). I believe Dolphin’s mixed/one-list approach is better, but it sends the wrong message to prioritize the Trash over the user’s curated places.
Comment 1 Felix Ernst 2022-07-16 11:41:12 UTC 
>The user’s curated places are more important than the Trash. 

I don't believe this is true. The Trash is in many ways one of the most important things for users to access because it is where they recover data they might have trashed by accident. A user adding more folders to Places doesn't mean they don't value the Trash being there as highly.

I also think it is the most intuitive if "Add to Places" adds the item to the bottom. Otherwise users might have to look for it. Users can change the order later if they want.

I also want to mention that the last position in a list is generally *more* important than the items above it because it is more easily memorised. So if the argument is that user's curated places are more important, putting the item they just curated at the bottom doesn't seem to contradict this notion IMO.

I will mark this as RESOLVED INTENTIONAL for now. But feel free to bring up other arguments if you think my logic is flawed and we can reconsider.