• i_love_FFT@jlai.luEnglish
      814·
      8 days ago

      Bigger values first, like standard numbers. That’s how it sits correctly using alphabetical order. MM/dd.

        • i_love_FFT@jlai.luEnglish
          104·
          8 days ago

          YES! But when there’s absolutely no ambiguity on the year, it can be skipped… Feels weird though.

        • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
          41·
          8 days ago

          100%

          And I name all of my filenames by YYYYMMDD and then the relevant name. Vastly superior and naturally intuitive. I also accept DDMMYYYY but I’m in the US and it’s not as intuitive for others around here

          • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
            5·
            8 days ago

            Your way is automatically sorted by date when sorting by name and that’s just, oh , uhhjh nnnnnngggg ahh.

            Please excuse me as I change my pants

            • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              4·
              8 days ago

              Or — hear me out — or you could sort by name if you want to sort by name and sort by modification date if you want to sort by modification date – and get this – sort by creation date if you want to sort by creation date.

              No need to shove two pieces of information in the same field.

              • 843563115848@lemmy.zipEnglish
                3·
                7 days ago

                But creation date and or modification date aren’t always the dates I want to sort by, so I use the same convention yyyy-mm-dd_name for most of my filenames too. It works for me, shoving those pieces of information all up in there. Lovin some shovin.