# RFC: The Standard Zeros v2.0

**URL:** <https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/rfc-the-standard-zeros-v2-0/2680>\
**Category:** Concepts\
**Created:** [July 2, 2025, 5:33am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/rfc-the-standard-zeros-v2-0/2680 "2025-07-02T05:33:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![njmatch3](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@njmatch3](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/njmatch3)\
**Post date:** [July 10, 2025, 5:28pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/rfc-the-standard-zeros-v2-0/2680/12 "2025-07-10T17:28:46Z")

</div>

I was tuning up my system today (I am transitioning roles within the same institution) and had to remind myself that in JD the most recent/specific stuff sorts to the bottom (highest numbered ID). This is backwards from the way a lot of people/systems seem to sort digital files – the default seems to be to sort by date, with most recent at the top. By contrast, JD encourages us to file at the lowest level possible (see the nifty flow chart at the bottom of [12.03 the standard zeros](https://johnnydecimal.com/10-19-concepts/12-advanced/12.03-the-standard-zeros/). I under appreciated that at the start and created a 90 area for archives. This is redundant once you have standard zero .09 for the whole system as well as every area and category. I appreciate that now even though it still seems a little counter-intuitive (my instinct is to expect archives at the bottom of a list). But what’s nice about it is if I go back into unstructured archives, I find myself sorting stuff into more specific locations down the list.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/rfc-the-standard-zeros-v2-0/2680)._