1tnilsson
Due to certain LibraryThing limitations when it comes to marking BCE versus CE books, I've added a "private comment" as to each of my books that notes either (A) the book's estimated OPD, or (B) the year to which the book's topic pertains. So, my private comment for "The Decameron" is "1353" (the estimated year of its publication) and my private comment for a biography of Hadrian is "138" (the year of Hadrian's death).
But it’s impossible to sort my private comments in any way that it shows that Hadrian lived before the Decameron was published. Instead of recognizing that 1353 is a higher number than 138, LibraryThing's sort reads the individual digits in a number from left to right (and sorts them by digit) such that books marked 138, 1353, and 1386 produce a sort of “1353, 138, 1385" rather than of "138, 1353, 1386."
Is there any way to sort private comments using whole numbers (i.e., so that the sort recognizes the entire number as whole and doesn't just sort by digit from left to right?
But it’s impossible to sort my private comments in any way that it shows that Hadrian lived before the Decameron was published. Instead of recognizing that 1353 is a higher number than 138, LibraryThing's sort reads the individual digits in a number from left to right (and sorts them by digit) such that books marked 138, 1353, and 1386 produce a sort of “1353, 138, 1385" rather than of "138, 1353, 1386."
Is there any way to sort private comments using whole numbers (i.e., so that the sort recognizes the entire number as whole and doesn't just sort by digit from left to right?
2norabelle414
You can add zeros in front to get them to sort correctly, e.g. "0138"
3MarthaJeanne
This is the way computers sort things. Adding leading zeros is the work around.
It is not a bug. It is working the way it is meant to. It is not a design flaw, as that field is meant to be free text.
Closing.
It is not a bug. It is working the way it is meant to. It is not a design flaw, as that field is meant to be free text.
Closing.
