IMDb Redesigns List-Like Pages

In what sense is the functionality reduced?

@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 @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

I explained in multiple posts in this thread that there were several benefits to renumbering entries when a list is sorted, the way that it used to be done. (Especially when sorting by IMDb rating, so you can easily see the relative rating of a movie within your list instead of having to manually count your way through it.) I also explained that I relied on those relative numbers (the way that it used to work) for certain processes I use that select movies based on their relative IMDb rating. And I have been pleading with you for months to back out the change you made to stop renumbering the lists when they are sorted. And what did you do instead? Now, when you sort a list into any sequence other than List sequence, there are NO NUMBERS AT ALL. I do not see how this provides any benefit or is in any way superior to the way that it originally worked. It appears to me that you are deliberately making changes that take away functionality that your users depend on.

I am really angry right now. I used to love IMDb and especially the List feature, and I've come to depend on it over the years. (I have lots of movie lists that I maintain.) But now it seems like you are just trying to sabotage it. Nearly every change you make these days either removes useful functionality, or makes the feature less aesthetically pleasing or more difficult to use. I don't think whoever is making these decisions has the slightest idea of how your users use your product.

Benefits of renumbering list entries when a list is sorted: (Functionality that was lost when IMDb chose to stop doing this.) 1. Before, if I wanted to know whether "Citizen Kane" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" had a higher relative rating within my "Classic Movies" list, it was very easy to find out. All I had to do was sort the list in IMDb rating sequence, do a find on each title, and compare their relative numbers. Now I have to walk my way through the list to find each title. Using the find command doesn't help anymore because if you find one, you have no way of knowing if the other one is above it or below it. ("Citizen Kane" and "2001" actually have the same IMDb rating, but within a list there is a tie breaker for movies with the same rating, so sorting a list by IMDb rating provides a finer relative rating than just the IMDb rating by itself.) 2. As I mentioned in a previous post, having a relative rating number (when sorted in IMDb rating sequence) can be useful when using a point system to create and 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. It is much more difficult to maintain that list now because I have to manually count my way through a long list of movies instead of just seeing their relative rating number. 3. I have a five part list of the movies we own that I call "Our Movie Collection". I keep both that list and my "My Watchlist" list in Release Date sequence. It used to be easy to maintain those lists when I bought a new movie or decided to add a movie to my watchlist. All I had to do was add the new movie to the bottom of the list, then sort the list in Release Date sequence, then find the title and look at the relative number within the list, and I would know what number to use to position my new movie within the list. Now, with the relative numbers gone when the list is sorted in Release Date sequence, positioning a new movie within those lists is much more difficult. I realized later that the second and third points on my list could be resolved by doing the following: 1. Adding "IMDb Rating" and "Release Date" to the list of sort options for the editor. 2. Adding a "Save New Sort Sequence" option to the editor. Then I could easily put my "Classic Movies Sort List", "Our Movie Collection", and "My Watchlist" lists in the sequence I want them.

Amen, brother! Preacher it! I used to use that function to make lists of say the fifty greatest westerns or one hundred best science fiction then be able to get numbered lists of the rankings by rating, release date, popularity, etc. to create a watch list for myself or just to see how they shook out. THAT was my whole point for doing lists!

@MSebring and @Chickfighter, thank you both for the feedback and sharing the specific journeys in which you used the numbering outside of list sort. I'll pass them onto the team and this detail is really helpful for informing solutions. In the meantime, I did want to note that you can also access similar functionality via the list export feature (if you select the Export button at the top right of the lists page, you can get a copy of your list in Excel and apply those transformations there). Thanks again for reaching out.

For one thing, I don't use Excel. For another thing, this is just another goofy workaround intended to compensate for the fact that functionality which worked fine before was taken away for no reason that provided any benefit. (It's like having to sort your list in reverse sequence before adding new movies to it to avoid having to bounce back and forth between the top and the bottom of the page.) What many of us are sick of are changes apparently made for the sake of making changes. Changes (e.g. removing the numbers when you sort a list) that provide no benefit to anyone but remove useful functionality or make things difficult that used to be easy. And when we bring the impact of the change to your attention, instead of being willing to fix it - to back out the change, you provide us with some clunky workaround that never should have been necessary.

IMDb User: I noticed when I logged on to IMDb today that all of the text in my lists is now upside-down. That makes it really difficult to read. IMDb: We just thought it might be a cool thing to start using upside-down text instead of that old fashioned right-side-up text. Kind of makes it look more modern. Might start a new trend. We never imagined it would cause anyone any inconvenience. But we're going to have to discuss it a while to decide whether or not we should back the change out. Probably take us several months. In the meantime though, you can stand on your head when you want to view your lists. Our developers have tried that and it works. I guess the reason why I am so angry about this list number problem is I had already explained how I use the relative numbers and how this change impacted me, and I was given the expectation that it would one day be fixed, and instead, they chose to make the problem even worse by removing the numbers altogether. On top of that, they have done nothing about the problem of our Description sections always being in edit mode *, which really bugs me and was reported ages ago, and their only response to the problem of "add a title to this list" being at the opposite end of the page from where the title is added was to provide a goofy workaround. * When you are viewing one of your own lists (not in edit mode), if you click anywhere in your Description section (including when you select one of your links, or you want to copy some of your text so you can paste it somewhere else) you automatically begin editing your Description section.

@MSebring we do hear your feedback on the numbering as well as the editable description. For context, we have also had feedback that cuts the other way for both (e.g., for numbering, some people who make ranking lists find it clearer if the numbers always to correspond to the ranking they assigned). I am noting your frustration and suggestions so the team can consider all feedback as we evolve the experience.

I don't know about anyone beyond this thread in this community, but if you look through the posts here you will find: One person (bderoes) has stated that she likes the new method of not renumbering the list when it is sorted. Several people besides myself (including Horst, Chickfighter, jon_832, and smartiy) have made it clear that they prefer the original method of renumbering the list when it is sorted. Some of us have gone to the trouble of explaining how a relative rating number is beneficial when a list is sorted by IMDb Rating sequence, and a chronological number is beneficial when a list is sorted by Release Date, and various other people have clicked like on the posts containing those explanations. I have seen no explanation saying that the original list sequence number is some sort of rank that is somehow beneficial when a list is sorted in some other sequence. jon_832 specifically asked what the reasoning was for not renumbering the entries and he never got an answer. And then, apparently since we couldn't all agree, they decided to make a change that would make us all unhappy, and they removed the numbers entirely when a list is sorted. Did they do this out of spite? About the Description section being editable when your list is not in Edit mode: Do you have a list with a bunch of text and some links in your Description section? Try copying some of that text so that you can duplicate it in another list and see what happens. When all you want to do is copy text, there is no benefit to going into edit mode. In fact, it makes it more difficult by unselecting the text you selected. Try selecting one of your links. Doesn't it look kind of hokey to you (not aesthetically pleasing) that it takes you into edit mode briefly before actually following the link? Like whoever designed the software didn't have a clue what they were doing? (I am retired now, but I spent most of my life designing, writing, and supporting software. So poorly designed software really irks me.) If they made it so that just selecting the edit pencil in the top left corner took you into edit mode (instead of selecting anywhere in the field), this would solve the problem. Then people could still get into edit mode if they wanted to, but people could also copy text or select links without unintentionally going into edit mode. (Having a gas pedal that causes you to accelerate is better than having it happen if you put your foot anywhere on the floor. With the pedal, your car should only accelerate when you intend it to. Similarly, having the ability to edit the Description section when your list is not in Edit mode is not the problem. The problem is it's too easy to unintentionally go into edit mode when you do simple things that you should be allowed to do, like putting your foot on the floor.) IMDb is creating an adversarial relationship between itself and their long time customers - the true movie fanatics who put a lot of time and effort into creating and maintaining lists, by implementing software updates designed by amateurs, and by making arbitrary changes that provide no benefit but remove functionality or make it more difficult for their users to use their product. And when their users bring the impact of those changes to their attention, they are reluctant to resolve the issues by backing out the changes. An example of this was replacing multiple page lists with long single page lists. That was an incredibly stupid idea that no one who actually used the list feature would have come up with. And look how long it took them to resolve that issue. (I've noticed that users who use other kinds of lists are still waiting for a resolution.) No longer having entry numbers when I sort a list, unintentionally going into edit mode when I do anything in my Description section, and having to sort my list in reverse sequence before I add any movies to it are the current issues that bother me the most, but I notice other users dealing with issues that impact them just as much.

I am still wishing we still had the ability to compare relative IMDb ratings between movies in a list that is sorted in IMDb Rating sequence, without having to manually count our way through the list. (And relative chronological sequence within a list sorted by Release Date.) And I am still wondering how taking those abilities away from us provided any benefit.

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.

@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

SAR, any news about this? I really hate it that you still not have an option to see 256 items per list. And is there something wrong with the forum software? I can't see to quote anyone and links are not displayed as hyperlinks but as URL.

Hi Navin2000 - We don't have any new news to share. Concerning the forum changes you pointed out, at this time, all links will be displayed as plain text and will not be clickable. We are working to reinstate linking and will provide updates as further functionality becomes available on the following Announcement thread: https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-community-site-is-back-online/67c7463ff1f6982721eb235d.

Thanks for the info Michelle. But I hope you guys will soon give an option to let users decide how many items should be visible, or at least go for a number that is divisible by 4, since the Grid View always has 4 items. Also, there is something wrong with the forum software, because I can not always edit my posts anymore. And where is the quote function? And can you take a look at the last post in this thread? I tried to post a bug (as separate topic), but it somehow got merged into this topic, very weird.

Hi Navin2000 - Thanks again for that feedback. Concerning the current forum software, unfortunately, there is still some functionality that we are working to restore, such as editing and supporting rich text. We are taking a look at your bug report below and will handle shortly.

OK thanks for letting me know Michelle. I see that SAR already responded to my bugreport. But it would be nice if in the future, not every bugreport is merged into this topic, it's very confusing and this topic is already quite huge and chaotic. I still think you guys should switch to another forum software.

Four months ago they finally brought multiple pages back (at least for normal lists). At that time I mentioned two big problems that really bug me that I hoped would be fixed. Neither of those problems has been fixed yet. 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. (Many of my lists contain links to my other lists in their Description section. When I'm in one of my lists and click on one of my links, before following the link, it takes me into Edit mode in my Description section. This is really hokey and amateurish. It may simply be an aesthetic thing but it reeks of incompetence.) 2. The fact that they are no longer changing the sequence numbers when you sort a list. (Several people complained about this problem, and instead of fixing it they made the problem worse by removing the numbers altogether when you sort a list.) One other problem I have learned to live with is the fact that you select movies to add to your list at the top of the page but the movie is added at the bottom of the page if the list is sorted in List sequence. So you end up having to scroll back and forth from the top to the bottom of the page if you are adding multiple movies and adding text or positioning them after they are added. Instead of being willing to fix this problem, they have simply provided a hokey workaround: You can sort your list in reverse sequence before adding movies. This works and that's what I do, but I think their unwillingness to actually fix the problem is pretty amateurish as well.

@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.

This problem was brought up months ago. Does IMDb intend to fix it?

@MSebring we have let the team know so they can review the issue raised when considering future improvements.

This problem was caused by a change that IMDb implemented, and was reported by multiple users shortly afterward. When you implement a change that causes problems instead of providing a benefit, I wouldn't expect it to be so difficult to back it out. As I explained before, no longer being able to see the relative number when a list is sorted in IMDb rating sequence makes it difficult for me to maintain some of my lists (when the relative IMDb rating is used as one of my criterion for selection).

Hi

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,

@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.

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

Thanks for the feedback about using drag and drop when sorting by descending list order (I am seeing drag and drop work when sorting by ascending list order so please let me know if you are still not able to access that functionality). I will share with the team to inform future work.

@ SAR But what happens if you change sorting by ascending order? Can you still see the drag and drop buttons? I can't, so seems like a possible bug.

I have noticed the same thing. I was told earlier on in this thread that the workaround for the "Add a title" being moved from the bottom to the top of the page was to change your list from ascending to descending sequence before adding titles, but when you do that, the drag and drop option disappears. I wasn't sure if it was a bug or another goofy change that IMDb made for some unexplained reason.

@MSebring Thanks for confirming this bug.

Hi both, I am still seeing drag-and-drop when sorting by List order ascending. Please let me know if you do not see drag-and-drop in that sort. If you are referring to the lack of drag-and-drop when sorting by Date added, that is an intended change, as we realized the meaning/expectation of moving an item in that sort was unclear (if I move an item, then the list is no longer sorted by Date Added).

When you go into Edit mode, your list is in List sequence (regardless of what sequence it was in before you went into Edit mode). When you select the arrow on the right to reverse the sequence (as I was instructed by Col Needham to do as a workaround for problems caused by the title search being moved from the bottom to the top of the page) the drag and drop dots next to the selection box disappear and drag and drop doesn't work anymore. When you select the arrow to change it from "reverse List" sequence back to List sequence again, drag and drop starts working again. I don't know if this occurs on a phone but it happens on a Windows PC.

I created a screenshot of an Edit session in one of my lists on a Windows PC. I had selected the arrow to change it from List sequence to reverse List sequence. It shows that I was still in List sequence with the arrow pointing down instead of up, and the drag and drop dots are missing. But then I discovered that I don't have the ability to add screenshots anymore. (Maybe I am thinking of a different forum, but I was sure I'd added links and screenshots to my posts here in the past.)

@MSebring, thanks for clarifying, I did note the issue with drag-and-drop on list order descending here in the thread and will add your feedback to the notehttps://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-listlike-pages/662a8541586efb2637c22757?commentId=67cec7d0fe70c2656b4814c9&replyId=67d22cba96face300dde9349 There was another comment about not seeing drag-and-drop in an ascending sort, so my last response was to clarify the behavior for list order ascending vs date added ascending.

Hi @Navin2000 and @MSebring just wanted to note that we have fixed the bug with drag and drop so you should see that functionality back now when you use the descending sort on list order.

@Peter_pbn thanks for asking--we have never had that filtering on Name lists, but I'd be curious what filters you would like to see on Name lists if you want to share a feature request.

As many filters as possible like birth date, dead or alive, male or female. Also professions, but that doesn't even exist in the current advanced search. It is possible to use the advanced name search to filter a list, but if it isn't your own list it requires editing the URL. So ideally I would start on a list page and just click to apply advanced name search filters.

@Peter_pbn thanks for these ideas! Always appreciate the feedback and will pass it on to the team. We'll convert this post into a feature request so others can vote on it as well.

Thanks for this feedback. Could you share an example including URL of an image collection that was hard for you to navigate to help us look into it further?

https://www.imdb.com/de/name/nm0000078/mediaindex/?ref_=mv?ref_=mv_sm Please scroll down the images in the list of John Wayne, scroll down maybe 20 sites. Pick an image. Use the back button and you will be at the beginning of the list. If one wants to search through the whole galeria for images (e.g. for polls like I do), it's an endless scrolling-game the more one is ahead with the list.

After jumping back with the back-button, just scroll a little up and you will see you are at the beginning of the list, now matter how many sites you scrolled before.

I did like the old design better, the one with the numbers down there. I just had to remember which site I was at, last. But now it's one stream of images which always starts at the beginning when you enter the image-galery.

@Breumaster Thanks for that example, it does help illustrate what you're talking about. I can share this feedback so the team understands this need for future planning.