# Dynamic relational filters assume the lack of relation is intentional

**URL:** <https://community.fibery.io/t/dynamic-relational-filters-assume-the-lack-of-relation-is-intentional/4641>\
**Category:** Bugs & Issues\
**Created:** [June 16, 2023, 9:17pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/dynamic-relational-filters-assume-the-lack-of-relation-is-intentional/4641 "2023-06-16T21:17:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ccollins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbe5ce/32.png) [@ccollins](https://community.fibery.io/u/ccollins)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2023, 9:17pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/dynamic-relational-filters-assume-the-lack-of-relation-is-intentional/4641/1 "2023-06-16T21:17:16Z")

</div>

Dynamic relational filters (“This”) treat empty relations the same as a ‘is empty’ modifier.

This feels very non-intuitive to me. I’d much prefer that if a relation being used for a dynamic relation filter is empty, then that dynamic relation filter is ignored. Because if I wanted the lack of a relation to filter my options, I would use the ‘is empty’ modifier rather than a dynamic filter.

Maybe I’m being dense and there is a way to do this with groupings but I don’t see it. Or I’m not seeing the bigger picture. This makes stacking dynamic relations impossible.

> For example: [Relation A] always has a connection, so I want my results to dynamically filter by [Relation A]. But the list is still too long. [Relation B] sometimes has a connection, but is sometimes empty. If I have a [Relation B] linked, then I definitely want it to further filter down my options, but if [Relation B] is empty, then I still want the [Relation A] list without [empty Relation B] as a requirement.