Gene, I am thinking about the average runner, looking for a course. If they have something close to the name of the race, but are not sure, then a sort by city (which it does now) is good. If I don't know the length, I can only filter generally.
I don't believe anyone has asked to sort by cert number. It has been length, and Race Name.
For instance, there is a Runnin' o the Green, (a 7k), in Denver. I'm ("I'm" representing a runner) not sure how long it is, but I think it is at least a 5k. So, I filter "Greater than 5k", in "Denver". (I already put in "Running of the Green", as that is all I could remember, as a runner just hearing about the race. Nothing shows in the results, because the race is entered as "Runnin' o' the Green". Unless I enter it exactly as the Registrar has, I will get no result.)
So, I get all the courses in Denver that are 5k or longer. If they were sorted by length, then by name, I would have a better chance of finding something similar to Running of the Green.
I'm just saying that, if a runner doesn't know the exact name, or the exact length, if we sorted the results on more than City Name, it would be more user-friendly. It is simple as including "Order by Distance", "Order by Course Name", I would imagine. We cannot assume everyone using the db is one of us, or knows as much as we do about searching for a course.