|Do you know where your variables are?|
I see you have recently attained Level 9: Friar: congratulations!
This is the minimum level at which you can consider nodes or vote on Nodes to consider. You've started to do this, which is good.
It occurs to me that you've perhaps been presented with some dozens of considerations; possibly these span several pages; and generally it's a pain to continually scroll through pages and change pages to keep track of the considerations you have, and haven't, voted on.
Items are added to the Nodes to consider page in the chronological order of consideration; not the order in which the nodes were posted. For instance, we currently have this order of considerations (date of node creation shown):
[Those are times in my locale. What you see will be different (15 hours earlier?) but the order should still be the same.]
What this means, is that voting on everything you're initially presented with, is a one-off task. Once completed, new considerations will be added to the top, so all considerations you haven't voted on will be at the top. I think that is exactly what you were asking for: "... putting those that I have not at the top so that they are readily available, and those that I have towards the bottom.".
I did notice you said "section entries". I've assumed by that you mean the individual parts with the node details, consideration text and voting radiobuttons. If you were talking about sorting SOPW section considerations, Meditation sections considerations, etc. into separate lists, I would be against that as I'd consider it to be pointless work with no benefit I can see. I suspect that's not what you meant, but a clarification would be good.
In reply to Re: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?