Sorry I know this is a little OCD but..

[Smackos]

Am I the only one who this is slightly bugging? When you sort by "Year" you have everything by decade.. i.e:

1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's..

Then everything from 2000 through to now is all shoehorned in together. No "2010's" option to seperate the last decade to the current one. It's relatively minor as a gripe, but one of those things you wish you could "un-see" once you've spotted it..

[MaxH]

Re: Sorry I know this is a little OCD but..

Well, I've worked on sortable/filterable displays like this, and you don't like to see a category that only has a very small number of items in it...sometimes you might even have just one item, and that's really annoying to end users. But then with certain libraries that may happen no matter how long you wait, so I always say to set up the category after a majority of users will see a useful amount of content (depending on the content and what a "full" list consists of, usually at least 3 or more items). I'd say we're far enough into the tens now that we could use a separate 2010s category. I know I have 31 just in "New Releases", which seems to only include 2012 or later, so personally I certainly could use a 2010s category.

Is that OCD enough for you?