# The standard zeros **URL:** \ **Category:** Concepts\ **Created:** [June 10, 2024, 8:16pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558 "2024-06-10T20:16:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/cto/32/576_2.png) [@CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/CTO)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2024, 8:16pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/1 "2024-06-10T20:16:12Z")
Just been viewing the `42 Before you start - The standard zeros` video of the workshop video. Essentially, this video suggests having standardised IDs under `x0` for each Area (e.g. `x0.00 index`, `x0.01 inbox` etc). Furthermore, in the `44 As you complete this process - Lucy's system` video, it’s further suggested that the first 10 IDs of every Category are reserved for the same pattern of standardised IDs. This seems to be a significant extension of the previous recommendations on the website and the workbook. To my reading, this was limited to leaving `x0` vacant in every Area in case information needed to be saved about the Area in future. The website does recommend starting IDs at `xx.01` rather than `xx.00`, but not any more than that. Have I missed something on the website or in the workbook? Are people finding this approach helpful? Having an ID for inbox, notes, bookmarks etc for each Category seems excessive to me! ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2024, 9:26pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/2 "2024-06-10T21:26:29Z")
This evolved as we recorded it. @LucyDecimal can offer more comment as it’s her system, but sitting next to her I can say that she’s finding it tremendously useful. We’re just in the process of re-organising the system that we use to run the business, and will implement the full standard zeros there. If it works out, I’ll update the main site. > [@CTO](#): > > The website does recommend starting IDs at `xx.01` rather than `xx.00`, but not any more than that. I think it always will, at least on the first few pages. I’m already throwing numbers at people; I don’t want them also to be confused by this starting-at-`.11` thing as well. **But** it will also – as we say in one of the videos – be totally optional. If you want to start at `.01`, you’re not breaking a rule. I feel like Johnny.Decimal needs to be versioned! JD v1.x didn’t have standard zeros. JDv2.0.0 is a breaking change, introduces them. (I’m not gonna do this. Probably.) ---
**Author:** ![CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/cto/32/576_2.png) [@CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/CTO)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2024, 12:50pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/3 "2024-06-11T12:50:28Z")
Thanks for the explanation. I think what is breaking my brain is that _the standard zeros_ are categories in `00-09 System`, but IDs when used for `x0`categories within other areas. ---
**Author:** ![SwissArmyWrench](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/swissarmywrench/32/642_2.png) [@SwissArmyWrench](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/SwissArmyWrench)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2024, 1:48pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/4 "2024-06-11T13:48:29Z")
I think versioning JohnnyDecimal as a standard would be a wise idea when considering making software that goes with it. ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 4:05am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/5 "2024-06-12T04:05:26Z")
Great point. ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 4:06am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/6 "2024-06-12T04:06:11Z")
Yeah. It works but does require bending your head around it a bit. I’d like it to be a little more graceful/intuitive … but I just don’t think it is. 😂 ---
**Author:** ![LucyDecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/lucydecimal/32/2002_2.png) [@LucyDecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/LucyDecimal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2024, 6:11am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/7 "2024-06-12T06:11:27Z")
I totally understand getting to grips with the standard zeros. Especially the higher level system ones. If I was a first-timer to the website my eyes would have glazed over if I’d seen them early on. (They did glaze over a bit in the workshop video but hopefully I hid it. 😬) However, I’m a total convert. It’s like finding **secret compartments** in every category to store common things in. I’ve had to just dive in and start using them so they’re not scary anymore. I kept a list of them handy while I built my system to keep them top of mind. Apart from the `01 inboxes` - which I used to import/sort everything into my system - the full value of the zeros became apparent to me only yesterday as I migrated notes, to-dos, bookmarks, checklists, and other non-file items into my index. The decision-making became much lighter because many things didn’t require their own ID. They fit logically into the category overall in one of the standard zero folders. For example, I have a packing checklist. I’m not going to make a new ID in my travel category just for that. It already has a home in `16.03 Travel to-dos & checklists`. Anyway, they really appeal to me, but I definitely wasn’t ready for them until the end of the workshop. (Side note: I was thinking that if I _had_ followed the website and made a system without the zeros, then learned about them a year later … I might be a little annoyed thinking I’d have to re-order all my IDs to accommodate them. But maybe I’d just put the zeros at the ‘top’ of my IDs, from `AC.90-AC.99`. It doesn’t matter where they are as long as they’re ‘standard’ between categories. I floated this with @johnnydecimal and he said something along the lines of “sure, why not”. 🤷🏼‍♀️) ---
**Author:** ![hans](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/hans/32/719_2.png) [@hans](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/hans)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2024, 8:17am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/8 "2024-08-18T08:17:27Z")
Nice update to the website, especially the new Index pages! I noticed `XX.02` got renamed from ‘Notes’ to ‘Work in Progress’, with the qualifier “things you started working on before you know their ID” (paraphrasing). Interesting. I had been thinking of notes as things that would stick around indefinitely: like ‘usage notes’ for this category. But this name change makes me realize you can also think of ‘notes’ in relation to work in progress, i.e. in the way when you’re writing an article, it goes from notes to draft to final version. that made me realize that a lot of the ‘notes’ I envisioned in this ID should end up on the ID they relate to! There’s probably very few notes for a category (or area) that should stick around indefinitely; if not going to an ID, they should end up in xx.00 or xx.03 ‘checklists’ (which I call Standard Operating Procedures). One thing that feels a bit ambiguous to me, still, is the overlap between inbox and work in progress. I personally call Inbox _Stack_ and use it as a Noguchi-style most-recently-touched stack, until activity on it settles down and it becomes clear where it should end up permanently. I guess, like in email, it can be helpful to separate the two; somehow in my notes/filesystem it bothers me less than in email. Anyone have thoughts on the distinction between inbox and work-in-progress? ---
**Author:** ![CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/cto/32/576_2.png) [@CTO](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/CTO)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2024, 10:28am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/9 "2024-08-18T10:28:31Z")
> [@hans](#): > > Anyone have thoughts on the distinction between inbox and work-in-progress? Personally, I wouldn’t see much distinction, both could represent a place to quickly get started with something without having to finalise its location. Perhaps _Inbox_ implies stuff arriving from an external location (like email) whereas _WIP_ could be created by the system users own actions, such as jotting down ideas. I definitely agree with your idea of placing notes within a specific ID whenever possible. ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2024, 10:59pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/10 "2024-08-18T22:59:03Z")
I was never comfortable with `02 Notes`. It felt like a place that notes went to die! I put stuff there and then never thought about it again. If it’s a meta-note _about the category_, that’s what `00 Index` is for. If it’s about a thing, put it with the thing. And now, if it’s something you’ve just started working on and you’re not sure where it should go _yet_: `02 WIP`! `01 Inbox` is for stuff you’ve just got. You’re not working on it yet. That progresses to `02 WIP`, stuff you are working on. ---
**Author:** ![hans](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/hans/32/719_2.png) [@hans](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/hans)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2024, 5:43am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/11 "2024-08-19T05:43:55Z")
Very clear! ---
**Author:** ![interrato](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/interrato/32/1027_2.png) [@interrato](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/interrato)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 1:36pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/12 "2024-09-04T13:36:05Z")
# Alternative layout for the standard zeros Hello everyone! I’ve been looking into Johnny.Decimal for about a year now but, unfortunately, I’ve had very little time to work on it until recently. I am now following the workshop (I finished watching the video in category `44` a few minutes ago). This is my first post here, and I’m going to propose an alternative layout (actually, two very similar alternatives) for the standard zeros. I hope it’ll be helpful to someone and that could start an interesting debate. ## TL;DR I propose to move the area zeros, i.e. `A0`, into the system area `00-09` and to shrink the system zeros, i.e. `0x.0x`, inside the `00` category. This gives you up to 9 more categories and 12.36% (i.e. 891) more IDs free to use however you like. ## Introduction In category `42` of the workshop, the standard zeros, almost immediately after Johnny started explaining the area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category), I thought, “I really like this, but wait, aren’t we losing a lot of IDs here?”. The same thought was amplified later when Johnny explains the system zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area). I don’t really fear the “Will I run out of IDs?” problem, but if we go in the direction described, I think we’re truly giving away a bit too much (don’t worry, I’ll show you the math below). I like efficiency, and I think the layout can be optimized, so I’m here to propose an alternative. ## Premise (on the `AC.10` IDs) I have not been able to find a clear explanation (in the forum, the website, the workbook, or the workshop up to category `44`) for skipping the `AC.10` IDs. Though, I’m quite confident I grasp the idea behind this decision: just as we reserve category `10` (and `20`, `30`, …) for the system (i.e. the zeros), we also skip IDs `.10` (but not `.20`, `.30`, …, and this is where my intuition fails a bit) to avoid “confusing the 10s”. For this reason, I will actually propose two very similar alternatives: the second one differs only in that it maintains the practice of skipping the `AC.10` IDs. ## Definitions Here I’ll give a few definitions to be on the same page for the analysis and proposals reported below. - System capacity (SC): 10 areas × 10 categories × 100 IDs = 10000 IDs - Wasted ID: An ID that is _never_ used. - Meta ID: An ID that is used exclusively for system management (i.e. the zeros). - Usable ID: An ID that is used however you want (classic ID). > **ℹ Notice** > I will use a lot of preformatted text below. This is because I drafted the entire analysis of this post in my text editor, which obviously has a monospaced font, and I aligned everything neatly. I want this to be reflected here for ease of visualization and comparison. ## Analysis: the current standard zeros (baseline) ### Layout I won’t describe the layout as it is the one Johnny teaches and you can find it [on the website](https://jdcm.al/12.03/). ### Intervals ```plaintext Meta areas: 0C Meta categories: A0 Meta IDs: .00-09 Usable areas: 1C-9C Usable categories: A1-A9 Usable IDs: .11-99 ``` ### Counting IDs usage ```plaintext ID | C | A 1 × 9 × 9 → Waste 1 ID (i.e. AC.10) in each usable category in usable area 10 × 9 × 9 → Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area 89 × 9 × 9 → Use 89 IDs (i.e. AC.11-99) in each usable category in usable area ID | C | A 90 × 1 × 9 → Waste 90 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each meta category in usable area 10 × 1 × 9 → Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each meta category in usable area ID | C | A 99 × 10 × 1 → Waste 99 IDs (i.e. 0x.{NOT 0x}) in each meta category in meta area 1 × 10 × 1 → Meta 1 ID (i.e. 0x.0x) in each meta category in meta area ``` ### Results (absolute and relative IDs usage) ```plaintext Total waste: (1 × 9 × 9) + (90 × 1 × 9) + (99 × 10 × 1) = 1881 IDs [18.81% of SC] Total meta: (10 × 9 × 9) + (10 × 1 × 9) + (1 × 10 × 1) = 910 IDs [9.10% of SC] Total use: (89 × 9 × 9) + 0 + 0 = 7209 IDs [72.09% of SC] Total meta+use: 910 + 7209 = 8119 IDs [81.19% of SC] ``` ## Analysis: alternative layout proposal, no skipping of `AC.10` IDs (alt.1) ### Layout I’ll describe my proposal in a few words, but I think the example below will be the most useful part for understanding the layout. - Category zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ IDs): These stay the same, they’re inside the respective category and go from `AC.01` to `AC.09`. - Area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category): These are moved into the `00-09 System` area, specifically: - `10-19` management folder, i.e. category `10`, is moved to category `01` inside area `00-09`; - `20-29` management folder, i.e. category `20`, is moved to category `02` inside area `00-09`; - `30-39` management folder, i.e. category `30`, is moved to category `03` inside area `00-09`; - and so on. - System zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area): These are moved to category `00` inside area `00-09`, specifically: - ID `00.00` stays at `00.00`; - ID `01.01` moves to `00.01`; - ID `02.02` moves to `00.02`; - ID `03.03` moves to `00.03`; - and so on. _I’ll talk about the pros and cons after the analysis, towards the end of this post._ Example of the resulting structure: ```plaintext . ├── 00-09 System │ ├── 00 System management │ │ ├── 00.00 System index │ │ ├── 00.01 System inbox │ │ ├── 00.02 System work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 00.09 System archive │ ├── 01 Life admin management │ │ ├── 01.00 Life admin index │ │ ├── 01.01 Life admin inbox │ │ ├── 01.02 Life admin work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 01.09 Life admin archive │ ├── 02 Home business management │ │ ├── 02.02 Home business work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 02.09 Home business archive │ └── 03 Tennis club management │ ├── 03.01 Tennis club inbox │ ├── ... │ └── 03.09 Tennis club archive ├── 10-19 Life admin │ ├── 10 Me & other living things │ │ ├── 10.00 Me index │ │ ├── 10.01 Me inbox │ │ ├── 10.02 Me work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ ├── 10.09 Me archive │ │ ├── 10.10 Birth certificate & proof of name │ │ ├── 10.11 Passports, residency, & citizenship │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 10.20 Health insurance & claims │ ├── 11 Where I live & how I get around │ └── 12 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent ├── 20-29 Home business │ ├── 20 Clients & people │ │ ├── 20.00 Clients index │ │ ├── 20.01 Clients inbox │ │ └── 20.02 Clients work in progress │ ├── 21 ... │ └── 22 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent │ └── 22.01 Money inbox └── 30-39 Tennis club └── 30 Clients & people ``` ### Intervals ```plaintext Meta areas: 0C Meta categories: 01-09 Meta IDs: .00-09 Usable areas: 1C-9C Usable categories: A0-A9 Usable IDs: .10-99 ``` ### Counting IDs usage ```plaintext ID | C | A 10 × 10 × 9 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area 90 × 10 × 9 -> Use 90 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each usable category in usable area ID | C | A 90 × 10 × 1 -> Waste 90 IDs (i.e. 0C.10-99) in each meta category in meta area 10 × 10 × 1 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. 0C.00-09) in each meta category in meta area ``` ### Results (absolute and relative IDs usage & diff from the baseline) ```plaintext Total waste: 0 + (90 × 10 × 1) = 900 IDs [9.00% of SC] (-52.15% ~) Total meta: (10 × 10 × 9) + (10 × 10 × 1) = 1000 IDs [10.00% of SC] ( +9.89% ~) Total use: (90 × 10 × 9) + 0 = 8100 IDs [81.00% of SC] (+12.36% ~) Total meta+use: 1000 + 8100 = 9100 IDs [91.00% of SC] (+12.08% ~) ``` ## Analysis: alternative layout proposal, skipping of `AC.10` IDs (alt.2) ### Layout I won’t describe the full layout again. It is the same as alt.1, with the only difference that `AC.10` IDs are skipped (thus, wasted). I’m giving the adapted example structure, though: ```plaintext . ├── 00-09 System │ ├── 00 System management │ │ ├── 00.00 System index │ │ ├── 00.01 System inbox │ │ ├── 00.02 System work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 00.09 System archive │ ├── 01 Life admin management │ │ ├── 01.00 Life admin index │ │ ├── 01.01 Life admin inbox │ │ ├── 01.02 Life admin work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 01.09 Life admin archive │ ├── 02 Home business management │ │ ├── 02.02 Home business work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 02.09 Home business archive │ └── 03 Tennis club management │ ├── 03.01 Tennis club inbox │ ├── ... │ └── 03.09 Tennis club archive ├── 10-19 Life admin │ ├── 10 Me & other living things │ │ ├── 10.00 Me index │ │ ├── 10.01 Me inbox │ │ ├── 10.02 Me work in progress │ │ ├── ... │ │ ├── 10.09 Me archive │ │ ├── 10.11 Birth certificate & proof of name │ │ ├── 10.12 Passports, residency, & citizenship │ │ ├── ... │ │ └── 10.21 Health insurance & claims │ ├── 11 Where I live & how I get around │ └── 12 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent ├── 20-29 Home business │ ├── 20 Clients & people │ │ ├── 20.00 Clients index │ │ ├── 20.01 Clients inbox │ │ └── 20.02 Clients work in progress │ ├── 21 ... │ └── 22 Money earned, saved, owed, & spent │ └── 22.01 Money inbox └── 30-39 Tennis club └── 30 Clients & people ``` ### Intervals ```plaintext Meta areas: 0C Meta categories: 01-09 Meta IDs: .00-09 Usable areas: 1C-9C Usable categories: A0-A9 Usable IDs: .11-99 ``` ### Counting IDs usage ```plaintext ID | C | A 1 × 10 × 9 -> Waste 1 ID (i.e. AC.10) in each usable category in usable area 10 × 10 × 9 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. AC.00-09) in each usable category in usable area 89 × 10 × 9 -> Use 89 IDs (i.e. AC.10-99) in each usable category in usable area ID | C | A 90 × 10 × 1 -> Waste 90 IDs (i.e. 0C.10-99) in each meta category in meta area 10 × 10 × 1 -> Meta 10 IDs (i.e. 0C.00-09) in each meta category in meta area ``` ### Results (absolute and relative IDs usage & diff from the baseline) ```plaintext Total waste: (1 × 10 × 9) + (90 × 10 × 1) = 990 IDs [9.90% of SC] (-47.37% ~) Total meta: (10 × 10 × 9) + (10 × 10 × 1) = 1000 IDs [10.00% of SC] ( +9.89% ~) Total use: (89 × 10 × 9) + 0 = 8010 IDs [80.10% of SC] (+11.11% ~) Total meta+use: 1000 + 8010 = 9010 IDs [90.10% of SC] (+10.97% ~) ``` ## Pros and cons of the proposed alternative layout I’ll give some of the pros and cons I’ve thought about for this proposed alternative layout for the standard zeros. Of course, you could find more of both pros and cons, or even argue these. I’ll start with the cons. ### Cons - Area zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ category) are detached from their respective area. - The “focus-on-the-area-I’m-in” concept is weakened (though not for classic categories and IDs). - The zeros for area `x0-x9`, i.e. category `x0`, are now at category `0x`: this flip of position of the area digit may be confusing. - The system zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ area) are not the same as before, except for the system index. ### Pros - More categories are free to be used however you want (9 more categories!). - More IDs are free to be used however you want (up to 12.36% more, i.e. up to 891 more IDs!). - The “system index” is still as `00.00` (I love this). - Friction is added toward the use of area zeros (on the other hand, friction does not change much on system zeros), thus possibly leading to forcing more the use of category zeros (i.e. the ‘0th’ IDs), which are by definition more organized (our common goal). - System zeros and area zeros are closer to each other, bringing the management of the JD system closer to a single point. ## Conclusions I think the benefits of my alternative layout proposal for the standard zeros outweigh the negatives. Above all, it gives 9 more categories and up to 891 more IDs free to be used. Also, this layout further highlights that one should much prefer to use category zeros over area zeros, thus being more organized. I’d really appreciate hearing @johnnydecimal’s perspective on my proposal, and I’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts and counterproposals! Thanks for reading this far. ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 7:47pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/13 "2024-09-04T19:47:45Z")
Wow! I just wanted to say that I’d seen this, and that I’ll read it at some point over the next few days but I’ll give it the time it deserves. I’m looking forward to it! ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2024, 4:01am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/14 "2024-09-08T04:01:47Z")
Okay this is spectacular. I am in awe, Simone. I think you’ve given this more thought than I ever have. So I would say, I totally 100% endorse this approach. You’ve identified the ‘cons’, but honestly for people who are this deep in to the idea and implementation of the standard zeros, I don’t think they’re much of a barrier. Personally I prefer your first variant, where we start at `10.10`. That symmetry is more graceful than `10.11`. It’s probably too late for _me_ to change my habits, and I have no need of the extra IDs. But I have created the first ‘[further reading](https://jdcm.al/12.03/#further-reading)’ section on the site, and linked interested readers to your post. DM me your address so we can send you a sticker. A tiny thanks for a tremendous contribution. 🙌 ---
**Author:** ![Myles](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/myles/32/1144_2.png) [@Myles](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/Myles)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2024, 6:15pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/15 "2024-10-29T18:15:02Z")
One of those things that seems glaringly obvious once pointed out - thank you so much! I was confused and excited by the apparent duplication of the zero structure shown in the examples - which is to say you’ve moved them all up to the system 00 but also left them where they were. In my mind I resolve this by embracing your invitation make use of the extra numbers by retaining all the standard zeros at system with your modification and all the zeros within the 10-19 etc… for system numbers - but making a distinction in their semantic usage. At the 00 level they serve ‘temporal’ flows - inbox, like fleeting notes should be refined and moved along asap - whilst archive is ‘one step from the bin’ where they sit to gather dust just in case, in in the hope of a librarian. At the 10-19 (etc) levels they serve management purposes (governance, feedback, homeostasis etc… So for example for a practice I might have: 0’s as above 1 Practice 10 Practice management 10.01 Index/preamble (being more like a ‘readme’ with a description of how I view practice) 10.02 Set: Intentions, Commitments, Values 10.03 Setting: tools, furnishing of rooms, rituals 10.04 Results: Outcomes, Reflections 10.05 Changes to practice Something like that… ---
**Author:** ![jen](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/jen/32/1320_2.png) [@jen](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/jen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 1:35am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/16 "2025-03-21T01:35:04Z")
Hopefully responding to a very old thread is OK. Question: is this what the “standard” Standard Zeros would be, or is the intent that they are all 00.XX? Apologies if I missed this if it was clearly laid out elsewhere. | AC.ID | Description | | --- | --- | | 00.00 | System index | | 01.01 | System inbox | | 02.02 | System WIP | | 03.03 | System to-dos & checklists | | 04.04 | System resources | | 05.05 | System templates | | 06.06 | System future use | | 07.07 | System future use | | 08.08 | System someday | | 09.09 | System archives | I’ve read this thread and documentation topics multiple times to wrap my head around it. I think I am leaning towards following some of @interrato’s suggestions to utilize more of the 00 area, or utilize it differently if what is above is typical. As a numbers nerd, of course I have an Excel spreadsheet mapping out some combinations as it’s quicker to make a change and see what it might look like! (Or, quicker for me at least!). ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 1:54am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/17 "2025-03-21T01:54:21Z")
Honestly … I never worked out how these should look. I mostly wing it when we’re down at this level! Category, say, `04` is unlikely to have very much in it. But anything in it is theoretically just an ID, right? So do we just start at `04.11` like anything else?! This is definitely one of those _make it work for you_ cases. Let us know what you come up with! ---
**Author:** ![jen](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/jen/32/1320_2.png) [@jen](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/jen)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 5:53pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/18 "2025-03-27T17:53:32Z")
I’m leaning towards this, kind of messing with some of the location of things to suit my brain. - For the system level, I’m sticking with AC00 for all of my system level “standard zeros”. For now not using other categories within, but still working through my structure. - I’m leaning towards using .99 for archives although in System it doesn’t make a difference if I number it 00.09 or 00.99 as I don’t expect to have more in that area, it will be the last folder regardless. - I included an expanded view of my “life” area - 1X JMK to show where the .99 might be more impactful for me. I made its archive folder AC19, and instead of having my .99 archive folders within each AC 11/12/13, I named the folders as you would expect **but** placed those folders inside 19 Archives. I may change my mind on that after using it. My rationale is I (hopefully) won’t need to search archives often, and I can find them either by searching for 11. or .99 no matter where they reside in the filesystem. (And if I change my mind I can just drag them into the right folder without having to rename anything). ![JD folder structure](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/uploads/default/original/2X/9/984d77886064c3facda96f427ce51544a3fc83b4.png) It’s fun figuring this out but I’m trying too hard to make it “perfect” when I know that isn’t realistic! Jen ---
**Author:** ![johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/johnnydecimal/32/1759_2.png) [@johnnydecimal](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/johnnydecimal)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 8:26pm UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/19 "2025-03-27T20:26:20Z")
Neat! You’ve certainly got the hang of it. This sort of post makes me grin from ear to ear. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chefiori](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/user_avatar/forum.johnnydecimal.com/chefiori/32/1674_2.png) [@Chefiori](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/u/Chefiori)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2025, 9:07am UTC](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558/20 "2025-12-04T09:07:18Z")
What an impressive, detailed analysis! I really appreciate the mathematical proofs you included. Thanks so much for sharing this insightful post! I love your alternative layout proposal alt.1, & I have a quick question about using that: For the meta IDs, what if we change: - AC.08 Someday to AC.98 Someday; &, - AC.09 Archive to AC.99 Archive? Then, we could reserve AC.08 to AC.97 for expansions — similar to how AC.05 to AC.07 are used. Do you think this approach would reduce the wastage of meta IDs to 0%? [Next page](https://forum.johnnydecimal.com/t/the-standard-zeros/1558.md?page=2)