Numerical Album Sorting?

[Coogan]

I have my library sorted by Albums right now.  Looking at the attached image, why does Bravo Hits 106 come after Bravo Hits 10?
To me, it seems it should go to Bravo Hits 11.

[hiccup]

I have my library sorted by Albums right now.  Looking at the attached image, why does Bravo Hits 106 come after Bravo Hits 10?
To me, it seems it should go to Bravo Hits 11.

'Album' is a title field so it sorts on alphabet. It's not some numerical field.

[Coogan]

I have my library sorted by Albums right now.  Looking at the attached image, why does Bravo Hits 106 come after Bravo Hits 10?
To me, it seems it should go to Bravo Hits 11.

'Album' is a title field so it sorts on alphabet. It's not some numerical field.

Correct.  Since the alpahbetical is identical, wouldn't it by default use the numercal?
In my library it goes like this.

Bravo Hits 01
Bravo Hits 02
Bravo Hits 03
Bravo Hits 04
Bravo Hits 05
Bravo Hits 06
Bravo Hits 07
Bravo Hits 08
Bravo Hits 09
Bravo Hits 10
Bravo Hits 106
Bravo Hits 107
Bravo Hits 11
Bravo Hits 12
Bravo Hits 13
Bravo Hits 14

So clearly something is going on after 10 and before 11.
It's almost as MusicBee is treating 106 as 10.6

[hiccup]

The whole album title is alphabetical. MB doesn't (and shouldn't) look for any numerals that may or may not be present in the title.
So xxx106 should come before xxx11.

[Coogan]

The whole album title is alphabetical. MB doesn't (and shouldn't) look for any numerals that may or may not be present in the title.
So xxx106 should come before xxx11.

Ok, I see what you're saying.
Thanks for your help.

Coogan

[hiccup]

Great.
The foundation of your question/confusion is understandable and justifiable though.
Any human would sort these albums as you expected.
But this is how it will be until some advanced AI is integrated in MB's programming.
(and then I will probably disable it anyway ;-)

btw,
I see the first 9 albums already have zeros prepended.
That was probably done when the the expected amount of the collection would not exceed 99.
So if you change 01 to 001 you will be safe until 1000 arrives.

[Coogan]

Great.
The foundation of your question/confusion is understandable and justifiable though.
Any human would sort these albums as you expected.
But this is how it will be until some advanced AI is integrated in MB's programming.
(and then I will probably disable it anyway ;-)

btw,
I see the first 9 albums already have zeros prepended.
That was probably done when the the expected amount of the collection would not exceed 99.
So if you change 01 to 001 you will be safe until 1000 arrives.

I believe you are right.  I'm going to go ahead and try changing from 01 to 001 and hope these don't go over 1000.  lol
Thanks again for your help.  I can now see what's going on.  

[Bee-liever]

An alternative would be to leave your 'Album' tags as they are and use the 'Album Sort' tag.
That way you don't have those leading zeros actually show in the main panel.