
Champion
•
1.5K Messages
•
57.4K Points
🚩 URGENT: Classic edit page severely undermined (plus stuck contribution)
I suspect that what I'm about to report has to do with the new feature announced here, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'm creating this separate post.
Since yesterday, the standard contribution form surprises us with a new notice...

This notification is accompanied by two absolutely intolerable characteristics:
- A drastic reduction in the system's capacity to process edits.
Until now, the system would start displaying error messages after about 300–400 changes; the number varies because it also depends on whether the changes consist entirely of new additions (which significantly raises the threshold) or modifications within a department with a large number of pre-existing credits (the form is more likely to fail when it has to load many entries). The system’s tolerance limit can be expanded if the yellow warnings are corrected with each recheck. To give you an idea, the form issues a warning when more than 1,000 changes are made and prevents submission if this value is exceeded, but a priori it should be able to accept contributions close to that limit.
For example, last Sunday I submitted two updates (#261011-134715-646000 & #261011-134750-597000) with the Spanish dub cast for the series Fraggel Rock (1983), which contained 924 and 362 credits, respectively, without any problems.
Now, however, that pesky warning appears even with small edits—just a few dozen changes. Yesterday I started auditing the credits for Stay (2005/I), This is a movie whose credits (people and companies) could traditionally have been audited all at once in a single tab, but for some reason I decided to split it into two tabs, with one dedicated exclusively to the crew. Well, despite that, I'm getting the error message even though I've only made 39 modifications and 27 additions (just 66 changes!!).
How do you expect me to handle even a minimally complex contribution with this nerfed system?
- An unbreakable loop that forces you, one way or another, to waste the work you've already done.
The old notification was annoying, but at least it gave you three options: a) retry submission (which often worked and, if so, it allowed you to address the yellow warnings and “revitalize” the form’s functionality); b) save submission (which always worked; reloading a saved update crashes much less often than a recheck, which almost always allowed you to, again, correct the yellow warnings); c) cancel and return to the form. Under no circumstances, except in the extremely rare case where a very heavily loaded saved contribution cannot be recovered (which only almost happened to me once, and was resolved by switching from Firefox to Chrome that one time), was the entered information lost.
But now, once you receive that awful notification, you're only given the option to go back to the form, where you're met with the unpleasant surprise that whether you click “Re-check these updates” or “Save for later,” the notification pops up again. And there’s no way to break that loop unless you delete entries one by one and keep trying to resubmit until the form deigns to load. And, of course, forget about continuing the audit using that form, because the problem would just keep coming back. Before, you could at least save the form and then reopen it from the “Update history” in two separate tabs and split up the information to lighten the contribution, but now that's impossible.
So, right now I have the tab open in my browser and find myself in a situation where I can't send it (error message), I can't save it (error message), and I can't close it (lose all the information that took a little while to enter). I'm stuck! 😡
In short, it's currently not feasible (at least for me) to make contributions larger than small ones, whether using the new editing system or the old one (crash with fewer than 80 entries???). I can't work right now... Could you please take a look at this?
Thank you! 😥




Maggie
Employee
•
34 Messages
•
466 Points
7 hours ago
Sorry about the experience @ljdoncel. We're looking into this.
2