IMDb Redesigns List-Like Pages

@mackinjosh thank you for the feedback. Could you share a link to the page affected to help us understand your issue?

@MSebring​ 

I believe this is a new feature, where they are showing us the position number of the list items, rather than the rank number in the way you have filtered/sorted it.

This comes in very handy (used it today) when I want to edit my comments on an item I added a while ago. Without seeing the position number, I have no way of knowing where in the list it resides.

You can always search for the movie title though, which makes more sense anyway than going for the number, Barbara. I fully agree with Mr. Sebring here. Would be nice if they went for #1, #2 etc. again.

Having the rating rank number (when sorted in IMDb rating sequence) instead of the original list sequence number, can be useful when using a point system to create/maintain composite lists based on ratings from multiple sources.

(I use such a point system as a guideline when choosing movies to add to my "Classic Movies" list, and IMDb Rating is one of my sources.)

The same problem exists when sorting a list by Release Date (another sequence I use frequently).

@Horst​ Searching through multiple pages of a list is tiresome. Having the position number indicates where it will be found.

I would advocate for having both: the rank under the current sort/select and the absolute position number for the list's owner.

Perhaps:

1. (list pos 940) The Shawshank Redemption

Thank you all @MSebring @bderoes @Horst  for the feedback and suggestions on list numbering. We've catalogued your inputs so our team can review for future improvements.

@SAR​
I would like to point out that this problem is the result of a recent change.
I sort by IMDb Rating and Release Date fairly frequently, and it only recently started
preserving the original list sequence numbers instead of renumbering the list entries
according to the selected sort sequence.

And I really HATE the way it works now, and hope that you will fix it soon.
Before, I could sort a list in IMDb Rating sequence and then use a Find command to
find out how far down the list a particular movie was. Now, I have to count my way
through the list, which can be extremely time consuming, especially with a long list.

And when I want to know what the List Order sequence number is, I sort the list
in List Order sequence.

I am still hoping that that sordid "sorted lists no longer being renumbered" problem will be fixed soon.

BTW, here is another example of using a point system to combine ratings from multiple sources to create
a composite list (and IMDb Rating is one of the sources):
My Top 500 Movies

Thanks for your comment. We did make this numbering change recently but are passing on feedback from customers like yourself for the team to consider in future.

Thank you.

@MSebring​ 

I now see that pagination has been implemented, but it should only show the first 100 entries, not the the first 250 entries, so this should be changed, like how it used to work in the past. I hate it that you now won't see 4 titles in the last row. Perhaps it's an option to let people choose how many items should be displayed per page. 

I guess since I always use the Detailed view instead of the Grid view, 100 vs. 250 entries per page doesn't really make a difference to me. They are both much better than the single long page that made it take forever to scroll to the bottom of the list. I also like it that they allow you to select a page number at the bottom now. I no longer have to use my trick of changing the URL to go to another page.

(I hope everyone gets the movie reference from my previous post.)

Now there are only two problems that really bug me that I hope they will fix soon:
1. The fact that when viewing one of your own lists, the Title and Description sections are always in Edit mode.
2. The fact that they are no longer changing the sequence numbers when you sort a list.

@Navin2000  @MSebring thank you for the feedback on our list experience. We will share these points with the team for consideration as we evolve the experience.

@MSebring​ 

Yes, good point, I was obviously talking about the ''Grid view'' mode. Since I always like to see 4 titles in the rows, the total amount of titles should always be dividable to 4. I personally like to keep it at 100 titles, but another option could be 252 titles. And yes, it's indeed cool that we are finally able to bookmark individual pages of our lists again, without having to keep scrolling.

@SAR​ 

Thanks, and see my post directed to MSebring for more info.

@Navin2000​ 
256 is a cool number. It's a power of 2!  You could have 64 rows of 4.
Or maybe they could use 100 for the Grid view and leave it at 250 for the other two.

@MSebring​ 

Yes, 256 items is another option, I guess 64 rows are cooler. I also love it that the whole page (with all thumbnails) gets loaded instantly, instant of dynamically.

But I wonder if anyone from the IMDB team has responded to this idea? I hope it won't take 6 months to implement this, I mean it shouldn't be hard to change this stuff, right?

Perhaps SAR can respond? Oh wait, I just saw that SAR was active in this topic 10 days ago, so I assume he/she read this.

Thanks for the additional feedback, I have seen the suggestions about rows in Grid View and will note them for the team's visibility as well.

@SAR​ 

By the way, to give you an example of what I mean, if you scroll down to the last row, you will only see 2 thumbnails instead of 4.

So from a visual point of view, it's not that nice looking, see link. So why not always show 200 or for example 256 thumbnails, know what I mean?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls046424878/?sort=list_order%2Cdesc

@SAR​ 

By the way, on second thought, I prefer to have 200 titles per page, I noticed it takes too long too scroll with the current 250 titles. Or perhaps even 100 titles, like it used to be.

Thanks for elaborating on your page size preferences. While we do not currently have plans to change from the 250 page size, which now fits our Top 250 charts on a single page for viewing ease (see, for example, https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/), I will share the input with the team for evaluation.

@SAR​ 

Yes, but we're now talking about user lists? And not to forget, you also have lists of 100 titles, see link. I noticed that when I check out my lists (of favorite movies and series), I prefer 100 titles per page, because this way it's easier to keep track.

https://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom/?ref_=chttp_ql_7

@jon_832​ The benefit is the ability for the owner to find the item for editing the comments. I've suggested elsewhere that both the hard position number and the relative sort number be listed.

@bderoes​ 
But you can see the list number when the list is sorted in List Order sequence.
Is there some reason why you can only find the entries with comments you want to edit
when the list is sorted in some other sequence?

@MSebring​ The list is long, and I have no idea in which part of the list the item lives. The list order is really Date Added, and the point is that I have no recollection of when the item was added.

@bderoes​ 
I don't think you understood my question. (Or maybe I didn't understand your answer.)

When you go into a list, the list is sorted in List Order sequence, and you can see the original list sequence number - the same number you need to find the entry when using the editor.
Before this change was implemented, the problem you are describing (not being able to see the original list sequence number) only existed AFTER you sorted the list into some other sequence.

Is there some reason that you need to sort the list into some sequence other than the List Order sequence in order to find entries with comments that you want to edit?

If not, you can leave the list in List Order sequence and you'll be able to see the list sequence number that you need to find the entry when you use the editor to edit the comment.
(Even after you've sorted the list in another sequence you can always get back to the original sequence by re-sorting the list in List Order sequence.)

@MSebring​ Here's the most recent example, from this week.

I saw the movie White Christmas (1954) in cinema. I went to the IMDb page for the film, looked at the dropdown for lists to which it already belongs, and sure enough I already have an entry for it on my list "music/als watched". But that list is 7 years old and has 2160 items on it. How the heck am I supposed to find that film's entry among 2160 so I can update my comments? At 250 items per page, there are 9 possible pages where it could be.

With the absolute position numbers on display when Viewing the list, I can Refine the list to just the 1954 entries, which reduces to 23 entries, and WC turns out to be at position 717.

Now I can go to edit mode, and select page 3 to find item 717 for modification.

Without the absolute position number, I have to slog through each page: search on the page, not there? navigate to the next page, search again, etc.

@bderoes​ 
Oh. I believe I understand your problem now.
You want to be able to see the original list sequence number, NOT AFTER SORTING the list into a different sequence (which is what the rest of us are talking about), but rather WHEN YOU USE THE FILTERS to trim the list down to a smaller number. Is that correct?
 
I doubt that anyone would have a problem with the CURRENT list sequence number (in your case, the original LIST ORDER sequence number that matches the editor's sequence number) being retained when USING THE FILTERS.
We just want the list to be renumbered when we SORT it into a different sequence (e.g. IMDb Rating or Release Date).

@MSebring​ You've understood me now.

But your request... what should happen if someone both filters and sorts?

@bderoes​ 
The way it used to work before this change was implemented.
If you need to see the original list sequence number, sort the list in List Order sequence,
either before or after you start using the filter.
Sorting even a large list is very fast.

@MSebring​ So you're going to disallow me to restrict my list to 1954 and sort alphabetically in order find my desired title's position in the list. 

Assigning numbers one way when filtering only, and another way when filtering+sorting, is going to cause confusion. I think it should be consistent, and show both numbers, annotating the absolute position number as such. As I suggested elsewhere in this thread:

2. White Christmas (1954) [list pos. 717]

would be nice. (I chose relative position 2 because, when sorted in reverse alpha, that's the second 1954 film on the list I used as my example above.)

It would be very nice if we could also get both relative and absolute position numbers on Advanced Title Search when restricting to a single list.

@bderoes​ 
I don't really have a problem with them displaying both the current list sequence number and the original list sequence number as you suggest. It just seems unnecessary to me.
If they simply change it so that the SORT command always causes the list to be renumbered but adding and removing FILTERS does not, then you can use the list numbers for what you use them for (by sorting the list in List Order sequence) and the rest of us can use the list numbers for whatever we use them for.
 
If you use the Filters to trim your list down to a single page (now 250 entries) you can find the title you want using a Find command, so you can easily accomplish exactly what you want with the list sorted in List Order sequence. You wouldn't be hindered in any way, and your process would work a lot better than it did before the filters were introduced.
 
Right now, the current list sequence number (the sequence number based on how the list is currently sorted) is not available at all, so those of us who use list numbers for other purposes are out of luck. I have processes I use to maintain some of my lists that use the IMDb Rating sequence number or the Release Date sequence number, and those processes don't work anymore so I am no longer able to maintain those lists.

Thank you all for the great discussion here. We're sharing this feedback with the team to inform the lists experience.

Thank you for reporting this bug. We believe we've fixed the issue. Could you let us know if you're still seeing it?

Thanks for the feedback. We did make this numbering change recently and will share your perspective on it with the team.

Hi @alex_hartsell, our staff have been unable to reproduce your issue on iOS or Android. If you could share screenshots of the problem, we would be happy to investigate further.

Okay and here is a photo of what I have been trying to say:

Notice that the IMDb button is gone and it use to be there near the Amazon button. 

@SAR​ Here another at what I can't do for this list, but I want to edit this section for updates:

When I was on  IMDb through the app after clicking that button that is now gone, it didn't have the red block or the new list edit system. But every time I am on my laptop it does this red block that does not let me make updates to the list deprecation. I really want the old edit system for this list back so I can make some edit fixes and stuff. 

@SAR​ The Animated Films that were nominated for or present at the Academy Awards (and are also members too) list is one of my top favorite lists that I love to edit and update, but with this new system it is blocking it from happing. I made that list as not only an honor of animated films and their nominations and involvements with the Academy Awards, but as history of animation and the Oscars. If you are disrespecting this list by not allowing me to make updates you are also disrespecting animation and it's fans as well!! With all due respect and no disrespect to you or IMDB. IMDB is way better and superior to Wikipedia, it is just I have been an IMDb user for 16 years and just want one of the oldest and most view lists on this site to have some respect and go back to it's old editing system so it can be update. 

Thanks for the info, @alex_hartsell. It looks like the issue is that your description is over 10,000 characters, which is now the maximum allowed for that field. We recently updated our List policies, with a change to the maximum character limit permitted for List titles, descriptions, and notes (i.e., item descriptions). For more information please see our Lists FAQ. 

@SAR​ Yes I know that, but I want that list to go back to the old edit system so I can make some fix edits to the list description since it's Oscar season and I forgot somethings. I know I need more than 250 titles in that list to go back to the old edit system but this is a famous list that needs to go back to it due to it have a good history with IMDb and animation.

@alex_hartsell all list editing now happens on the new system (there is no way to go back regardless of list size), and our policies cover all lists going forward. If you would like to edit your description, you will need to remove some text to be under 10,000 characters. If it suits your purposes, you could also try splitting your description so some of it is in the notes of your list items rather than in one long list description. Hope this helps.

@SAR​ Sigh! I guess you are right and okay then...