The Star Ratings Filter <= Does Not Include Zero

[deepeddy]

I am using Elements 13. I use the star system to temporarily assign categories when I initially process photos from the camera. I selected <= five stars expecting to see all photos displayed but those without any stars are not displayed. This is apparently true for any non zero star rating. Certainly zero is less than any of  the others. Try selecting <= five stars and see if those with zero show up. What is the rational for zero stars not being less than one, two, three, four or five stars or am I doing something wrong? 

[MichelBParis]

Try to use the menu Search by details (metadata) with the option 'note.

You can save that as a 'saved search'.

[deepeddy]

Menu/Find/Metadata seems to value zero less than other ratings but that does not address my questions:

Why is star rating zero not less than one in the star rating filter like it is for Menu/Find/Metadata?

What rational is there to consider zero not less than 1,2,3,4 or 5?

[MichelBParis · Accepted solution]

deepeddy  wrote

Menu/Find/Metadata seems to value zero less than other ratings but that does not address my questions:

Why is star rating zero not less than one in the star rating filter like it is for Menu/Find/Metadata?

What rational is there to consider zero not less than 1,2,3,4 or 5?

The rules for the organizer were set more than fifteen years ago. Do you really think you can find someone at Adobe who can give the rationale of this choice at that time?

For other users like you and me, it's only possible to give suppositions.

For instance, many users don't consider the absence of rating as being zero. For them it means that this is an undefined value, or a temporarily undefined value. For others, it is an alternative way to find 'untagged' items. Who is right? Even if a majority of users complain about that choice, changing the rule will hurt many other users, so softwares editors are reluctant to changes those options in newer versions.

[deepeddy]

Thank you, MichelB.  Your response is appreciated. Yes, I can see where no stars could mean “not rated.”

Unfortunately the hierarchy doesn’t seem to be documented. Stars are a good tool because they are handy and very visible. On initial load from the camera I make a pass using one star for possible deletion which is much faster than deleting them individually and stars seem much faster than using a “delete” tag. Then I review all the one stars to make sure they should be deleted then delete in one swoop.

As far as “Do you really think you can find someone at Adobe who can give the rationale of this choice at that time?” I should have phrased the question “What rational is there?” to “What rational could there be?” I did find someone, and that was you thank you.

[MichelBParis]

You are right that the 'rationale' of that feature is not documented.

It's a very legitimate question and well worth a discussion among users. My remark was about the history of the Elements Organizer. This organizing feature was at first issued in  'Albums', an independent and free companion software to Elements, based on an Access database. Since that time, the organizer was built around an sqlite database (PSE6). Elements and its organizer was then moved to a new team in India and assigned a new part in the Adobe set of organizing tools: Lightroom and Bridge. So you can bet that there is no longer any Adobe staff in the Indian team who was present when such an option was defined...