Would it possible to add a filter on "Module Depth"?
Working a lot with shallow skiffs recently, and that would save me from digging through module descriptions to check if they are compatible.

A Eurocrack Pusher: "The first time is for free" ;)

Would it possible to add a filter on "Module Depth"?

You know you can sort by Depth?
Click twice to change sort direction. Valid workaround?


You know you can sort by Depth?
Click twice to change sort direction. Valid workaround?
-- modulargrid

It helps, but i still have to go through the module description do have an idea of actual depth.
A filter with x = max depth in mm, that excludes all modules without depth definition and deeper than x.
Workaround would be to see depth displayed in the overview, so no further clicks are needed to know actual depth.

A Eurocrack Pusher: "The first time is for free" ;)

Would it be possible to list something as 0 hp for stand alone items, which arent required to be in a rack but directly interfacing with your system? things such as the Intellijel mult pucks, bastl Dude could be examples. Maybe another catagory such as 1u but not require a row and maye have them appear to the sides of the rack sorta like the excess modules will appear if they dont fit in the hp of your current rack?

Im thinking of this because of a "module" i am trying to add on here which does not require space is having its image really messed up whilst attempting to pretend it has some hp so people can see it exists.

Not sure if its feasible or worthwhile, but thought i would ask :)


Hi,

I apologize if I've missed this feature, but would it be possible to keep a collection of modules? For instance, I've several modules in a huge rack and I'd really like to reorganize. Instead of looking through my racks, if I could just have a view (like the normal search/sort view) for modules I have. Then I can say, "show me all my VCOs," or something similar. I might remove a module from a rack to make room for another. If it's in "my modules" I can just go to that list and add it back to a new rack.

I know there are ways around this like making an enormous rack and putting every module you have in it, but that doesn't have any sorting or filtering capabilities. Also, with this feature, perhaps if I go to a module, it can say, "you have (3) of this module, one in rack A and two in rack B."

Anyhow, just a thought. I know this isn't a little feature but I thought I'd throw it out there. Regardless, I love this site and I love how much it's grown and evolved over the years (wow, it's been that long?).

Cheers!


@frozenkore

would it be possible to keep a collection of modules?

We have that feature already for unicorn users.
1. In the module browser there is a suitcase icon on every module, next, where you can rate modules. Click there to add or remove a module to your collection.
2. Under the search form is a tab navigation, which reads All Modules and My Modules. Click My Modules to see your module collection. You can search in your collection for VCO or name, etc. just like you would search normally.
3. You can easily add all modules of one of your racks to your collection. Navigate to your rack and click the dropdown menu top left edit and then Add all to My Modules


Ahh! Thank you! I thought I had seen a post about a suitcase, but I was looking on the actual module info page instead of the search view. Cheers! Then I revise my request: Could we have a "+ Add to My Modules" on the individual module pages?

Thanks!


I put it to the todo list ...


I put it to the todo list ...
-- modulargrid

Cheers!



How about a section in the search criteria for expansion boards for modules?
I guess that parameter could be tacked on to the description pop-up in the rack. It'd be useful to be able to search for this because of the nature of expansions being a plus (or minus) toward the decision to include a module in your rack.


How about a section in the search criteria for expansion boards for modules?
I guess that parameter could be tacked on to the description pop-up in the rack. It'd be useful to be able to search for this because of the nature of expansions being a plus (or minus) toward the decision to include a module in your rack.
-- Sandrine

You mean to signify whether a module has an internal* expansion on it or not? You can always add that as part of the available info on the module itself and then link to the original site with more info on the expansion.

I'm not sure I'm following. By the way, there aren't a lot of modules with internal* expansions - yours and a handful of others are the entirety in Eurorack.

*I'm unsure if you mean expansions like the MIDI option on your VCO or expanders/break-out modules like the others available on MG. The latter are always posted as separate modules and tagged as such.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Please think about limiting the number of whatched modules for non unicorn members. It constantly drains my wallet if I get notifications for modules that look interesting :o)
And maybe it would be cool to delete all notifications at once.


...limiting the number of whatched modules for non unicorn members. It constantly drains my wallet ...
-- suomynona

A technical solution for a non-technical problem? Umm.


Please think about limiting the number of whatched modules for non unicorn members. It constantly drains my wallet if I get notifications for modules that look interesting :o)
And maybe it would be cool to delete all notifications at once.
-- suomynona

How about: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankejkbhbdhmipfmgcngdelahlfoji?hl=en ? Keep yourself away from MG entirely, that way you won't spend your money on modules.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Haha, yeah right.


Hi MG folks,

I posted a mini-rant about this (i'm in no way upset or angry, just a little frustrated) on the Facebook MW group about module function tagging . There was a time when one could select a module function, such as "VCA", and be presented with list of modules that served that function. Now when a user selects "VCA" they get result that include modules like "Percussa Super Signal Processor " which kind of defeats the purpose of categorization.

I understand that many modules have multiple functions and there is a benefit to cross-listing. I question the usefulness when that modules extra functions do not really meet the criteria of the function filter. The example above is extreme, because it illustrates how a user looking for a VCA will be presented with something utterly ridiculous for that function. Other cases like a drum module being cross listed as an Envelope Generator, because it has an EG, but that EG is not accessible for use with other modules, begs the question of it's intended function.

I do not have a solution, I wish I did. It was mentioned on Facebook that maybe there should be a logical separation of Function and Feature. For example, MATHS is many things and should by all means be cross-listed. However, it is at it's core a Utility module. If I could select the Function of Utility then further refine my filter by Feature tags, that would solve both the need for users and people listing modules with many uses. So basically, all modules could have a single main function and then have an unlimited number of features. The Function categories could be a little more broad to encapsulate the wide range of features many modules have.

I understand that, if implemented, it would require a large amount of data normalization and refinement. I am not totally sure how to handle something like that as I have not given it any thought beyond this sentence :)

I hope this all makes sense and it's not coming off sounding like nonsense or a complaint. I care about this site and use it daily.


Why not edit the modules you deem as tagged inappropriately with what you think is the correct tag and serve the community while helping yourself? For instance, I find that Maths is primarily an Envelope Generator and not a Utility module, so you can clearly see that our points of view on what the main Function of a module is might differ.

That being said, as I replied on your FB post, the question that tagging needs to answer to is whether a module can be used as X or not. If the answer is yes, then the tag should/could be applied. Do not forget that some manufacturers tend to overstate what their modules contain and might also overtag just for marketing purposes; I have no concrete examples of their MO but I have seen some examples of overtagging when a module cannot actually offer such functionality. I simple edit on my part solved that but it's not always possible, especially if a Manufacturer decides to lock the module's description, as is their prerogative.

One easy and immediate solution to this problem would be to limit the tag option down to 2-3 tags at maximum. No exceptions. That would force uploaders/manufacturers to really have to decide what type of Function each module serves and by which tag it is best described. Does that mean that some modules would be underserved or underrepresented in particular categories? By all means, yes, that would be the case, especially for modules that have a million functions (I'm thinking Maths or Sports Modulator as good examples of that), but in my opinion that is a small price to pay to make MG cleaner.

We could add a multifuntional tag as a representative of that particular category. A "well, it does more than that" type of thing.
But then again, I prefer clarity. Someone might disagree.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Damn, I had a detailed and great response queued and clicked submit to be presented with a login. Ugh. I'll try to respond again, but it's gonna be much simpler.

Why not edit the modules you deem as tagged inappropriately with what you think is the correct tag and serve the community while helping yourself?

Absolutely. I do this all the time, but it's a lot of stuff and my time is limited. Also, manufacturer lock :)

For instance, I find that Maths is primarily an Envelope Generator and not a Utility module, so you can clearly see that our points of view on what the main Function of a module is might differ.

True that, I wonder if a broader category like "Modulation" with sub feature filters that one could select multiple feature from would work? For example the user could select the FUNCTION Modulation and then select 1 or more multiple FEATURES like Attenuator, Envelope Generator, Mixer.

That being said, as I replied on your FB post, the question that tagging needs to answer to is whether a module can be used as X or not. If the answer is yes, then the tag should/could be applied.

I would definitely not want to limit the amount of information or anyones ability to cross-list items. I just think there may be abetter solution. Totally agree with you that if a module can be used as X it should state that.

Do not forget that some manufacturers tend to overstate what their modules contain and might also overtag just for marketing purposes; I have no concrete examples of their MO but I have seen some examples of overtagging when a module cannot actually offer such functionality. I simple edit on my part solved that but it's not always possible, especially if a Manufacturer decides to lock the module's description, as is their prerogative.

I think this could be solved with the suggestion I am proposing.

One easy and immediate solution to this problem would be to limit the tag option down to 2-3 tags at maximum. No exceptions. That would force uploaders/manufacturers to really have to decide what type of Function each module serves and by which tag it is best described. Does that mean that some modules would be underserved or underrepresented in particular categories? By all means, yes, that would be the case, especially for modules that have a million functions (I'm thinking Maths or Sports Modulator as good examples of that), but in my opinion that is a small price to pay to make MG cleaner.

It would certainly help get the ball rolling on cleaning up the data. Then maybe creating a FUNCTION drop down and a FEATURE attribute based filter might be easier.

We could add a multifuntional tag as a representative of that particular category. A "well, it does more than that" type of thing.

I am not sure adding a multifuntional tag would solve the problem. Though the idea is right in that broader categories to encapsulate modules main function might be beneficial. This is provided more detailed sub-tagging could be applied and the method for searches allowed one to select multiple features. It could mimc ecommerce product listing page filters. For example, if one is looking at a product listing page for the t-shirts category then could then select the colors black, red and blue from a filter list and not have to see white, yellow and orange.

But then again, I prefer clarity. Someone might disagree. r

To me, this is all about clarity.


Absolutely. I do this all the time, but it's a lot of stuff and my time is limited. Also, manufacturer lock :)

True, but so is everybody else's, including the people who mod the site. This is a community effort, we all pitch in somewhat.

[...] I wonder if a broader category like "Modulation" with sub feature filters that one could select multiple feature from would work? For example the user could select the FUNCTION Modulation and then select 1 or more multiple FEATURES like Attenuator, Envelope Generator, Mixer.

I am not sure adding a multifuntional tag would solve the problem. Though the idea is right in that broader categories to encapsulate modules main function might be beneficial. This is provided more detailed sub-tagging could be applied and the method for searches allowed one to select multiple features. It could mimc ecommerce product listing page filters. For example, if one is looking at a product listing page for the t-shirts category then could then select the colors black, red and blue from a filter list and not have to see white, yellow and orange.

I think you're simplifying the problem to a degree which is not realistic. Color is an attribute and can easily be defines as a subgroup of a product category. It is a rather obvious one and makes for an easy UX choice, whereas functionality VS features are interchangeable attributes. To extend your example, where does Mixing fit in terms of Utility? Is it a subcategory of Utility or a different function entirely? This is all subjective as we try to define usage in an area which by definition tries to avoid it. Modulation, right, what about all the oscillators that can go to LFO speeds? It's a can of worms.

Again, in my most humble opinion, the problem we're facing is having too many disparate modules on the grid. If we get the option to merge, categorize as one-off creations or manufactured (because not all manufacturers are properly listed) and then allow for a maximum of 3 tags per module, that could make things far more easier to navigate. What if a module can do more than those three things? Well, you know what, that's what manuals and demo videos are for. We also have a huge database of info on MW FB and MW forum and that's what the internet is here for.

Personally I don't have much of a problem with the tagging system as it is; I don't even mind being able to give all the tags for all I care. I would only make the question more apparent when someone uploads a module "Can it provide this functionality to other modules?" and have the uploader tag the module as such. It's easier for users to have to answer a question than not, it helps to focus. But you raise a fair point as we do see tags being misused.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Absolutely. I do this all the time, but it's a lot of stuff and my time is limited. Also, manufacturer lock :)

True, but so is everybody else's, including the people who mod the site. This is a community effort, we all pitch in somewhat.

Sorry if that came off dismissive, didn't mean it that way. Just meant that even with all the people doing this right now, it is a difficult and time consuming process.

[...] I wonder if a broader category like "Modulation" with sub feature filters that one could select multiple feature from would work? For example the user could select the FUNCTION Modulation and then select 1 or more multiple FEATURES like Attenuator, Envelope Generator, Mixer.

I am not sure adding a multifuntional tag would solve the problem. Though the idea is right in that broader categories to encapsulate modules main function might be beneficial. This is provided more detailed sub-tagging could be applied and the method for searches allowed one to select multiple features. It could mimc ecommerce product listing page filters. For example, if one is looking at a product listing page for the t-shirts category then could then select the colors black, red and blue from a filter list and not have to see white, yellow and orange.

I think you're simplifying the problem to a degree which is not realistic. Color is an attribute and can easily be defines as a subgroup of a product category. It is a rather obvious one and makes for an easy UX choice, whereas functionality VS features are interchangeable attributes. To extend your example, where does Mixing fit in terms of Utility? Is it a subcategory of Utility or a different function entirely? This is all subjective as we try to define usage in an area which by definition tries to avoid it. Modulation, right, what about all the oscillators that can go to LFO speeds? It's a can of worms.

You are correct, I am over-simplifying the problem. Mostly so that I can wrap my head around it abstractly without actually doing any real work. To really dig in to it someone would have to look at all that data and begin t structure it. I do this all the time for work and it can be a nightmare. I am actually running into an issue with this right now where products are both categories and attributes. Though in my case, there is a hell of lot less that what exists on MG. And yeah, maybe modulation is not a good idea, but trying to start somewhere.

Again, in my most humble opinion, the problem we're facing is having too many disparate modules on the grid. If we get the option to merge, categorize as one-off creations or manufactured (because not all manufacturers are properly listed) and then allow for a maximum of 3 tags per module, that could make things far more easier to navigate. What if a module can do more than those three things? Well, you know what, that's what manuals and demo videos are for. We also have a huge database of info on MW FB and MW forum and that's what the internet is here for.

Yeah, I can see how having multiples is a problem. Not including the micro-Braids, there are 9 distinct Braids modules on the grid. Merging those into one using the multiple panel feature would be a huge start towards cleaning things up.

And I totally agree on the manual/video/forum point about getting more detailed descriptions. Maybe you are on to something with limiting the tags.


There was a time when one could select a module function, such as "VCA", and be presented with list of modules that served that function.

It's hard to get this right, because it is not only a technical problem but also a question of definition.
I think we have 2 problems here:

1. modules are overtagged

We have a best practice for that @ParanormalPatroler already explained:

the question that tagging needs to answer to is whether a module can be used as X or not. If the answer is yes, then the tag should/could be applied.

e.g. if a module is labeled as a VCA it has to have input and output jacks to be used as a VCA in conjunction with other modules. If there is somewhere a VCA burried in the module you cannot access it is not right to tag it as a VCA. It is a community effort to get the tags right.

2. modules are tagged correctly but the result is still confusing/unexpected.

If you have a synthvoice with accessible patchpoints it is o.k. to tag that module as VCA.
Still people looking for just a VCA don't want to have a synthvoice listed at the first places in their result.

One easy and immediate solution to this problem would be to limit the tag option down to 2-3 tags at maximum

Sure that would work too, it would be the easiest and quickest solution, but it would feel almost like cheating ;)
Btw. we already have a max limit.

Damn, I had a detailed and great response queued and clicked submit to be presented with a login.

Sorry!

I wonder if a broader category like "Modulation" with sub feature filters that one could select multiple feature from would work?

I understand the idea but I am not very much into the category/subcategory topographies. It gets academic and inconsistent very quick. Beginners will be overwhelmed, the UI will be difficult and the SQL queries will be slow/complex. If it is possible to keep it flat and simple I am in for that.

I am experimenting to implement a ranking for the results. If someone is explicitly searching by function the modules with less attached functions will be prioritized in the ranking. That means there will be a penalty in the listing position for the swiss army knife and overtagged modules.
So searching for VCA will get you the simple building blocks first.
I think that might be a good thing because manufacturers have to think about the main function of their module.

The main idea is to not add any new functionality but to just magically get better results.


I am experimenting to implement a ranking for the results. If someone is explicitly searching by function the modules with less attached functions will be prioritized in the ranking. That means there will be a penalty in the listing position for the swiss army knife and overtagged modules.

We have that update now. What do you think?


Ok, this is interesting. A few thoughts. I think the penalty could work, but it may take some time. For example, I sorted by LFO. Batumi, which is clearly an LFO has 4 tags and shows up way, way down on the page (Atlantis showed up first until I removed all tags but Synth Voice). This could prompt manufacturers to use less tags so that placement is higher on the page. The solution implemented sort of works, but not for items that are tagged heavily.

I know what I had suggested previously may have been too complex, but this is why I suggested it. If there are two lists from which to tag. Where the first list is PRIMARY FUNCTION and users are only allowed to select a single primary function but as many SECONDARY FUNCTIONS as they like, then you could easily sort by PRIMARY FUNCTION.

In the ADD/EDIT portion of the site you could have a dropdown for primary function, so you would not have to have duplicative checklists.

The PRIMARY FUNCTION could be the new database field. It would mean that many modules would not have that particular field filled out for a while, but eventually we'd get there.

Side note: I am not pushing this agenda, I am just having a conversation. I work in a filed where we bounce ideas off each other all day long, so I am not married to any of my ideas, just trying to spur creative thinking.


We have that update now. What do you think?
-- modulargrid

Is it working though? 'Cause I'm searching based on tag only and I get mixed number of tags on the results. I would assume the ones with just that one tag would appear first, no? Anyway, I think it's a great idea to be honest. We should definitely go with that one.

Side note: I am not pushing this agenda, I am just having a conversation. I work in a filed where we bounce ideas off each other all day long, so I am not married to any of my ideas, just trying to spur creative thinking.
-- dysonant

Don't worry man, I don't think anyone is in love with their ideas here. We're all pushing for a better user experience when it comes to using MG; that's the end goal! Personally, I really enjoy these types of conversations anyway.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Is it working though? 'Cause I'm searching based on tag only and I get mixed number of tags on the results.

It should work. Which browser are you using, which function/tag are you looking for?

I would assume the ones with just that one tag would appear first, no?

Yes, that is the idea.


It should work. Which browser are you using, which function/tag are you looking for?

Yes, that is the idea.
-- modulargrid

I'm using Firefox 56.0.1 (64-bit). I just clicked on the "Frequency Divider" tag (no other search options) and I got (in order of appearance): Compare 2 (Comparator, Dual/Stereo, Frequency Divider, Logic), Divide & Conquer (Clock Modulator, Frequency Divider), DIV (Clock Modulator Frequency Divider), Burst (Clock Generator, Clock Modulator, Frequency Divider, Random), ... , 4046 Shaper (Frequency Divider).

Can't upload a screenshot it seems but hit me up via PM if you want to Skype this out; I can share my screen there and you'd have a different system to demo this.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Followup: ok, it works when using the drop-down. Just checked with Frequency Divider again and it works just fine. It does not work when clicking on a tag though, just so you know. My offer still stands if you need to test.

PP.

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Ok, this is interesting. A few thoughts. I think the penalty could work, but it may take some time. For example, I sorted by LFO. Batumi, which is clearly an LFO has 4 tags and shows up way, way down on the page (Atlantis showed up first until I removed all tags but Synth Voice). This could prompt manufacturers to use less tags so that placement is higher on the page. The solution implemented sort of works, but not for items that are tagged heavily.

Atlantis showed up first, when you selected LFO? This is wrong, maybe there is a bug in the code :(

The PRIMARY FUNCTION could be the new database field. It would mean that many modules would not have that particular field filled out for a while, but eventually we'd get there.

I see. I am not totally against it, but I know there would be a lot to change with the version system ...

Side note: I am not pushing this agenda, I am just having a conversation. I work in a filed where we bounce ideas off each other all day long, so I am not married to any of my ideas, just trying to spur creative thinking.
-- dysonant

It's completely fine, we need ideas to improve.


Followup: ok, it works when using the drop-down. Just checked with Frequency Divider again and it works just fine. It does not work when clicking on a tag though, just so you know. My offer still stands if you need to test.
-- ParanormalPatroler

Ah, those little blue tag links in the module short description box? They should work now too.


I'm using Firefox 56.0.1 (64-bit). I just clicked on the "Frequency Divider" tag (no other search options) and I got (in order of appearance): Compare 2 (Comparator, Dual/Stereo, Frequency Divider, Logic), Divide & Conquer ..
-- ParanormalPatroler

Did not see your first message: The order you have is "Newest". The default order wasn't switched when clicking on a tag. That should be fixed by now.
However you can still change the sort orders any time, if people want the old representation with "most popular first" it is possible.


Did not see your first message: The order you have is "Newest". The default order wasn't switched when clicking on a tag. That should be fixed by now.
However you can still change the sort orders any time, if people want the old representation with "most popular first" it is possible.
-- modulargrid

Looks good to me! I think it's an elegant solution ... but now I feel compelled to go tag those 10-15 modules that have no tags whatsoever

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

I already DELETED 30+ tags of some notorious modules ;)


I already DELETED 30+ tags of some notorious modules ;)
-- modulargrid

Holy crap! LOL.

BTW, I meant to say Atlantis showed up before Batumi, not first. The ordering is working fine for me per the spec you mentioned.


I just cleaned up. The only untagged modules on the Grid are the ones locked by manufacturers etc. I contacted them via the Contact Manufacturer button asking if they can tag their modules appropriately. Here's hoping they'll do it.

Anyway, it's just a few. Did the rest myself!

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

I just cleaned up.
-- ParanormalPatroler

Just wow and thank you!


Is there a way to rotate/flip individual modules, such as a Batumi where the CV patch points are on top rather than on bottom?

I realize the writing and controls would be upside down, but people flip them in real life just the same.

Surely this has been asked and discussed before, did I miss the feature, or has it be omitted on purpose, or what?

Thanks. Amazingly useful site...


We've been discussing adding the option to flip a panel for while. It could/should be implemented in some in the future. In the meantime, if the module is not already available as upside-down you can add it yourself, but make sure to tag it as Unlisted. It's a bit of a pain to get duplicate modules just because someone wanted the panel flipped (my personal opinion anyhow). I have a few that I've uploaded myself (it's a fair request) but I tag them as Unlisted to avoid duplicates for others. :)

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Ok, thanks.


One idea would be to actually Edit the available module (if possible) and change the panel to the reverse. Users can scroll through available panels via the Panel option. Both normal and flip versions would be available on the same module.

The problem with that is a) not everyone knows it b) most people would get their panels flipped all of a sudden.

:)

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Is there a way to rotate/flip individual modules, such as a Batumi where the CV patch points are on top rather than on bottom?
-- RunnyKine

We've been discussing adding the option to flip a panel for while.
-- ParanormalPatroler

The future is now! I have added a 180° flip function. There is also the keyboard shortcut f available. I hope I did not break anything ... Thanks for reminding me, guys!


Now to remove all the duplicates :D :D :D
This is great!

All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.

Hey, it works, that's awesome. Thank you much.


Thanks so much for the flip option! I have been meaning to suggest it be added to the modules ever since I started using PedalGrid! ;-) I had to hunt down this thread so I could bestow my thanks. And yes, like ParanormalPatroler I now have to delete all my hidden upside down versions! lol

There is a slight bug with the spinner icon that I noticed in PedalGrid and it exists for the module spinner icon as well. It's no big deal but if I turn the Popover off, the spinner icon doesn't disappear along with the Info and Trash icons. A workaround is to refresh the browser which makes it disappear. Probably a tiny bit of code to change or a flag box to check? ;-)


... if I turn the Popover off, the spinner icon doesn't disappear along with the Info and Trash icons.
-- JohnLRice

That should be fixed now.


Maybe a "trending" filter in the modules search page would be cool, a filter that give us the more used modules in the month or something like that (and not like "popular" filter that give us the most used of all times)


... if I turn the Popover off, the spinner icon doesn't disappear along with the Info and Trash icons.
-- JohnLRice

That should be fixed now.
-- modulargrid

Thanks much! I checked on both a eurorack modular and a pedalboard and can confirm it is working.


with the somewhat recent "panel selector" feature, i'm finding quite a few modules have dozens of redundant images. Can there be a mechanism to help clean these up? (ie a remove a duplicate image)


...added a 180° flip function.

-- modulargrid

Use it all the time so thanks a heap!

BTW, doing this with real hardware modules too, even when they are not ment for flipping. In my two row system I like to keep the jacks in the center as much as possible. It clears some of the cable spahetti.


Would it be possible to export the entire module database to a CSV or Excel compatible file? Sometimes I'd like to run a more complex search or filter than the website enables.

Also, maybe this feature already exists - is it possible to drag and drop modules between racks such as in the Command Center view?