Sorting by name is incorrect for Windows incremented file names

Currently reading
Sorting by name is incorrect for Windows incremented file names

Uploading files from Windows in the format 'file.name (#)' where "#" is incremented resulting in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ..., the filenames are incorrectly sorted as 1, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
 
Last edited:
Is using ## format a problem in a way to start with 01, 02, etc
Yes. Windows will not let you rename files so that the increment includes the leading zeroes. The sort needs to treat the numbers within the brackets as numbers and not as text.

Incorrect Sort Example
Testing (1).jpg
Testing (10).jpg
Testing (11).jpg
Testing (2).JPG
Testing (3).JPG
Testing (4).JPG
Testing (5).JPG
Testing (6).JPG
Testing (7).JPG
Testing (8).JPG
Testing (9).JPG

Correct Sort Example
Testing (1).jpg
Testing (2).JPG
Testing (3).JPG
Testing (4).JPG
Testing (5).JPG
Testing (6).JPG
Testing (7).JPG
Testing (8).JPG
Testing (9).JPG
Testing (10).jpg
Testing (11).jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1625676938358.png
    1625676938358.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 9
Windows will not let you rename files so that the increment includes the leading zeroes
Not sure what you mean. I've just tested on my work PC* and, in Windows Explorer, I can rename file 'New Text Document (1).txt' to 'New Text Document (01).txt'.

*I use Mac so I'm only familiar with Windows enough to do what I have to.


Edit...

Is the sorting you're seeing in Photos? It uses some embedded data tag and then uses file creation date.
 
Yes, but that is a single file. Try it with multiple files and you will find that Windows only keeps the leading zeroes for the first file. Did you see my example, for which I added a screenshot from Windows?

My bad, I should have added it to the correct part of this thread.
Windows incrementing file names.png
 
I actually created, in order:
New Text Document (1).txt
New Text Document (10).txt
New Text Document (2).txt

Then currently have them changes and listed as (where 01 and 10 swap places if sorted in decreasing value):
New Text Document (01).txt
New Text Document (002).txt
New Text Document (10).txt

But is your problem is with Synology Photos displaying the files out of order or with Windows?
 
Within Synology Photos, when you sort by name and ascending, the files are sorted by the file name text and do not take into account the numeric value in the parenthesis. The below example is drilling down through the year and month, but the same thing happens within a folder (sans file names).

1625678753113.png


1625678829805.png

1625678875873.png

1625678850228.png
 
OK, I see. But I still don't understand why the filenames can't be created or modified to have leading zeros. Or just use an application (or write a script) to rename to make the names something that works the way you want it to in Syno Photos. Or create the files with the date and time taken in the filename.
 
Last edited:
Why should I have to massage the data for Synology Photos, rather than have Synology Photos make a smarter sort? If Windows Explorer can display these in "numerical order", can't I expect Synology Photos to do likewise? If it is solved for me, think of how many other Windows users would benefit from this enhancement. I am one of many looking to use Synology Photos as a replacement to Google Photos.
 
Re-reading the thread subject I see you were merely stating a fact, rather than asking for a solution.

Why should I have to massage the data for Synology Photos, rather than have Synology Photos make a smarter sort?
Because at the moment Synology Photos doesn't seem to be able to do what you want. Unless it gets changed there's two choices: adapt or find another solution. The best (only) way to get Synology Photos to work how you want it to would be to raise a bug ticket.

I've never used Google Photos, wasn't aware it existed, but recently I see people are leaving it, for whatever reason. Is it shutting down?
 
Re-reading the thread subject I see you were merely stating a fact, rather than asking for a solution.


Because at the moment Synology Photos doesn't seem to be able to do what you want. Unless it gets changed there's two choices: adapt or find another solution. The best (only) way to get Synology Photos to work how you want it to would be to raise a bug ticket.

I've never used Google Photos, wasn't aware it existed, but recently I see people are leaving it, for whatever reason. Is it shutting down?
Google Photos just started charging for storage above 15GB, so users are leaving the platform.
-- post merged: --

Thanks and I will submit a bug or feature enhancement. I'm new to the forums and didn't understand that I need to contact support.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Old thread notice: There have been no replies in this thread for quite some time. The last reply was on .
The content in this thread may no longer be relevant. It might be better to open a new thread instead.

Similar threads

  • Question
Context here is: Synology Photos, browsing fotos with the quick filter enabled and more specifically what...
Replies
0
Views
387
Hi there, welcome to the forum! While I have no personal recommendation to your workflow, you could...
Replies
1
Views
926
  • Question
By way of update, and for those following the thread, the album sort feature has been added to both the...
Replies
6
Views
7,611
I recently noticed something similar. Uploaded 200 videos and noticed one video was showing as most recent...
Replies
1
Views
1,604

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

SynoForum.com is an unofficial Synology forum for NAS owners and enthusiasts.

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Trending threads

Back
Top