Don't show empty values first when sorting ascending

If you want to sort a view in Fibery ascending, then currently the entities with empty fields always show first. This is really anoying/problematic if you want to sort on:

  • Priority
  • Date (like deadline)
  • Numbers (smallest to greatest)
  • etc.

In all these cases it’s more logic to first show entities where the value is set if you choose to sort ascending. If an entity has an empty value, then show it at the end of the bottom of the list.

Really hope this is a small change because it’s kinda hard to explain to a customer that this is the current logic :woman_shrugging:t2: Or does anyone has a simple workaround for this? Can do all kind of things with formulas, checkboxes etc. but if I need to do that for every field I want to sort on, it will clutter the databases :woman_shrugging:t2:


Maybe we can combine them. But we don’t have this problem for only date fields; it’s for almost all fields that the user will use.

With the new table/list views, the user will (hopefully?) be able to easily sort values.

We are currently facing problems with

  • Deadline field
  • Planning field
  • Priority field
  • And every other field where user can set a value in (like tags, themes, projects, etc.)

It’s currently really strange to have a list with ‘show all tasks with deadline’ and then show first 200 tasks with no deadline and then 50 tasks where deadline is set :woman_shrugging:t2:

Same for priority and planning field. And also for tags, which we use a lot.

Really curious what Fibery’s vision is. Do you guys think that the current solution (show empty first while sorting ascending) is correct? Or do you guys agree that it’s not that logic?

And if so, is it something that’s on the roadmap to fix?

If not, then I need to create a lot of workarounds to create a logical sorting for our clients. I’m afraid that those will not be that future proof if user will be able to sort easily via tables/fields in the new grid :woman_shrugging:t2:

But we do need to fix it for our customers somehow. So please let me know what the plans are :smile:

It would be ideal to make it user-configurable, but failing that, whichever logic was chosen (show first or show last) I imagine some users will be dissatisfied :wink:

The best we can hope for currently is that we’ve p!ssed off exactly 50% of users who have an opinion either way :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Well, I don’t agree with that at all.

You know we understand very well that you can’t please everybody and in many cases we build workarounds. But I can’t think of a logical explanation that when you sort a database, every entity is sorted. But only if the entities have the field you sort on set → otherwise Fibery ignores and overrules a user’s preferences and desired results by putting anything that doesn’t match the sorting criteria at the top.

I have seen many project management software systems. But I’ve never seen a system that fails to put the tasks with the closest deadline at the top. At Fibery the items for which no deadline is set (schedule, priority, etc.) always end up at the top.

Except when you do the sorting the other way, but then you see the task you scheduled for later first. How should a company with a couple of employees and many more tasks do this?

So if you really look at this challenge and users see what happens when users haven’t set the field they are sorting on for each entity (expected work behavior), I don’t see how you think you will satisfy 50%.


Sorry if my attempt at a humorous reply fell flat!

I totally get that perhaps some (the majority?) of users would want empty date fields at the bottom when sorting a ‘deadline’ field in ascending order, but there may be users/cases where a date field has some other meaning, e.g. ‘last purchase date’ where it is desirable to sort in descending order, and a user also wishes to not have empty values on top.
Furthermore, I believe the underlying logic for sorting of empty dates is also used for sorting of empty values for number fields, text fields, etc.
In the those cases, empty values coming first when sorting ascending may be preferable.

Hence this comment:

I don’t consider putting empty values first (or putting them last for that matter) means that Fibery

It just seems like the software default (null values come first when sorting ascending) is not satisfactory for a fair few users.

No hard feelings :hugs:

For everyone that is facing the same problem >> we’ve created checkbox formula fields in each relevant database to decide if a value is empty or not.

For example: Deadline :white_check_mark: with formula If(IsEmpty(Deadline), false, true)

In that way you can sort on that field first so you have entities with a deadline on top of your list.

Only bummer is that we’ve created 27 fields in 7 databases so that we can sort ascending without empty values.

But also glad that everything is workaroundable (is that a word?) in Fibery :smirk:


I also regularly face this issue with unwanted empty values at the top of a view sorted by priority for example.

Another workaround would be to implement the relationship field settings ‘input required’, and ‘default value’, two features Fibery doesn’t have yet, but that I’m looking forward to.

I understand that automations and scripts can work around this, but until there is a shared automations library, structure-providing automations across mutliple databases can become complicated.

1 Like

We have this as a minor problem as well, thanks for sharing a workaround :slight_smile: