IMDb Redesigns List-Like Pages

@lgoldman​ Thanks for the problem report.  We assume that the ratings lists where you are seeing this all exceed 10,000 votes?

If so, unfortunately the same technical issues as we covered previously in this thread with you still apply, sorry. The behind-the-scenes limits still apply.

If not, please provide 2-3 example URLs of ratings lists with less than 10,000 votes which demonstrate the error. 

@Col_Needham​ Thanks for your reply, but this is not the same issue. I am suddenly unable to go beyond the first page of ratings lists. When I click Next or select a page number from the drop-down menu I get this instead: http://lgoldman.allmail.net.user.fm/IMG_0597.png

@lgoldman​ The example user profile supplied (https://www.imdb.com/user/ur1617546/) has over 40,000 rating so this is the same issue, at least in this case, sorry.  Please provide URLs of any profiles with under 10,000 ratings which demonstrate the issue and we can investigate, thanks. 

@Col_Needham​ How is this the same issue when it was never a problem before now? I chose another profile, this one well below 10,000 ratings, and the same thing happened when I used a filter. I clicked on Movie and got the same "No items match your selected filters" message when trying to go beyond the first page. https://www.imdb.com/user/ur4480528/ratings

@lgoldman​  Here is what we get at https://www.imdb.com/user/ur4480528/ratings/?title_type=feature which seems to be working fine:

This could be a local problem, so please follow the advice in https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/common-issues/why-is-imdb-displaying-differently-on-my-browser/GF2ZAR69V859XLHF and let us know what happens. 

@Col_Needham​ Yes but did you try to go beyond the first page? That's when the problems start.

As an independent 3rd party, I have no problems going beyond the first page (either with Next or by selecting "2" from the page dropdown)

@lgoldman​ Yes, https://www.imdb.com/user/ur4480528/ratings/?page=2 works fine too, see below. How did the steps in the guide we posted above go? 

@Col_Needham​ I haven't had a chance to try those steps yet, but what you're showing here is page 2 of the complete ratings list. It's when I try to do it with a filter that the problem usually occurs.

@lgoldman​ Sorry about that.  In the time which passed between answering, I forgot about the "Movie" filter.  We can reproduce this and it is a bug, sorry.  We will flag this to the appropriate team.  

Sorry again for the misunderstanding.  

@Col_Needham​ Another issue that is starting to occur--when using a filter, only 100 items per page are showing, even though the heading says 250. Of course that is for the first page only, since we still cannot go beyond that.

@Col_Needham​ Now I keep getting the "Sorry, there was an error loading the page" message, especially when trying to access pages in a filtered ratings list. It doesn't happen every time but often enough that it is very annoying.

Here, here. I agree wholeheartedly. I barely use lists any more because of this.

BRING BACK THE NUMBERING FOR ALL SORTINGS OF A LIST!

@MSebring​ Thanks for the feedback, however, the numbers were not removed "for absolutely no reason" -- they were removed because of intense on-going customer confusion over what those numbers should or should not mean.  After experimenting and gathering data from actual customers, there turns out to be an almost 50:50 preference between those people who want the sorted list to be renumbered to reflect the new order and those people who want the original numbers to be retained despite the fact that they will not be in a numerical sequence.  Neither "side" can understand why the other side would want the numbers the other way.  Case in point, there's a long debate over on https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/numbering-disappears-after-sorting-list-order/69a7fe3c1f84b211a9e06405 with someone who would prefer the opposite to you.  The compromise was to remove the numbers when sorted, sorry this is not ideal.  

On the other thread there's a private reply where we provide instructions on how to have your preferred AI write a Tamper Monkey script to re-insert the renumbered numbers into the UI, but that is easier for that side of the debate.  However, it is still possible to do the same thing for your side, it is just a more complicated prompt.  Please see our next reply on this thread for details on how to do this.  

@Col_Needham​ 
I have neither the expertise nor the software to design the type of solution you are proposing, and I don't believe that a user of your product should have to put so much effort into regaining functionality that you inadvertently took away. This reminds me of various other goofy workarounds you have provided to compensate for changes that have had a negative impact on your users (like having to sort your list from bottom to top to make it possible to add text to and position a new entry when you add it to your list).

From my experience here in this thread, ONE person liked the change that was made to how the numbers worked, and MANY people expressed that they preferred the way the numbers originally worked and that they had lost functionality as a result of that change. But even if the division was close to 50/50, I believe that the decision to remove the numbers completely when the list is sorted was a poor one, because it ended up disappointing both groups. You could have instead added multiple numbering options just as you have multiple display options and multiple sort options. That would have satisfied both groups.

Basically, it seems to me that by removing the numbers when a list is sorted, you took away comparison functionality that many users used (one could easily find out if one movie was rated higher than another or released before another by doing a find on both titles and comparing the numbers, instead of having to scroll through the list looking for each movie), because some people simply didn't understand the renumbering (which had been there for many years) or recognize its value. So you removed functionality that many people used to satisfy some people's idea of aesthetics.

BTW, if I were a gambling man, I would bet that more than 60% of your users prefer the way your numbers originally worked (because of the functionality it provided when a list was in IMDb Rating or Release Date sequence), to the way you originally changed it to (the list sequence number stayed with the title when the list was sorted), and to having no numbers at all when a list is sorted. And when you people say that this new way "tested better" (implying that there are as many or more people who like the new way), I believe that you are being dishonest and are ignoring the input of people in this community who have complained about the lost functionality.

I see you have marked my last comment Private (as you did to Navin2000 and others in the other thread) because it clearly explained the disadvantage of how the numbering works now over how it worked for years prior to the change (the functionality that was lost simply because some people did not understand it), and because I challenged your claim that as many people like the new way as like the old way. Basically, because you have already made a decision based on other input (which I suspect is not representative of your user base as a whole), you are unwilling to listen to the input of people in this community.

Vita pergit. Accipio res ut sunt.

@MSebring​ 

I'm not sure what Col_Needham meant, because in the thread that he referred to, which was started by me, I didn't see anyone actually liking the change? I said the exact same thing as you, it defies all logic.

It's very simple, when you re-sort a list, then obviously the titles will get a new number. And just because certain people didn't expect this, doesn't mean you should simply remove the whole numbering system, it's the weirdest thing I have ever seen.

@MSebring​ 

I don't get it, what's with this ''marking posts as private'' stuff? This doesn't make sense either, am I missing something?

@Navin2000​ 
"Marking posts as private" is their way of censoring people who clearly make points that they don't wish to listen to.

IMDb is a good example of the "enshittification" problem explained in Cory Doctorow's book. (They're not the worst, though they are high on my list.)
Basically, it is a bait and switch scheme. A business designs a great website that appeals to lots of users and gets them hooked on it. Then they work toward achieving a virtual monopoly on the service they provide, so they no longer have to care about whether their existing users are satisfied with it. (They don't expect us to leave because there is no place else to go.) Then they can focus on making changes that increase their profits whether their existing users like those changes or not, including changes that increase advertising revenue, and changes that appeal to new users who want different things. That is why IMDb prioritizes attracting new users over satisfying the users they already have, and why they listen to test groups they've put together and ignore the input from this community.

However, when businesses make poor decisions like this one involving the numbering, it is often difficult to tell whether they are a result of the enshittification problem (deliberate) or simple incompetence (unintentional).

[removed my misunderstanding in the original reply regarding which customers preferred which display of numbers, sorry for the confusion]

When we did the original customer research on this, which led to the current decision, 100% of customers understood the numbers reflecting the list order of the items and we continue to display those numbers in that order.  As soon as a list is sorted, confusion breaks loose -- for the vast majority (80-90%) of customers viewing a sorted list, most were confused by the presence of the numbers and that confusion was eliminated by removing the numbers. Of the remaining 10-20% of customers who cared about the number display, the split was pretty much even between those, like you, who expect the list to be renumbered to reflect the new sort order and those like @MSebring who expect the sorted list to display the original numbers.  Each side cannot understand the position of the other one.  

This is why we do not display the numbers on sorted lists. 

@Col_Needham​ 
That is not what I said. I said I wanted the entries to be renumbered when a list is sorted (the way it was for years before you did the List upgrade) just like Navin2000 does, and I have explained multiple times the benefit it provided when a list is sorted in IMDb rating sequence or Release Date sequence.
Sometime after you did the List upgrade, you changed it so that the original List sequence number remained with the entry when you did a sort. One person here said they liked that new way, and many people here including Navin2000 and myself said we liked the original way better and explained why. Then you took the numbers away completely when a list is sorted.

This is what I said in my previous post:
BTW, if I were a gambling man, I would bet that more than 60% of your users prefer the way your numbers originally worked (because of the functionality it provided when a list was in IMDb Rating or Release Date sequence), to the way you originally changed it to (the list sequence number stayed with the title when the list was sorted), and to having no numbers at all when a list is sorted. 

And I don't understand how the way the numbers worked for years and years before the list upgrade, started confusing people after the list upgrade. No matter what sequence the list is sorted in, the first entry is 1, the second entry is 2, and so on. That way if you want to compare two movies relative IMDb Ratings, you just sort the list in IMDb Rating sequence and compare their two numbers. And if you want to compare their relative Release Dates, you just sort the list in Release Date sequence and compare their two numbers. How difficult is it to understand that? Once you have sorted a list into a different sequence, the original List sequence number is no longer of any value.
And now, because you have removed the numbers completely when the list is sorted, instead of simply comparing two numbers, you have to manually count your way through the list which can be very time consuming.

I can't say for certain but I suspect that in your polling you are only listening to newer users and ignoring the input of long time users who were accustomed to the way the numbers originally worked and understood its benefits.

BTW, In the following posts I explained that I preferred (1) the original numbering method from before the list upgrade which renumbered entries in a list when it is sorted, to (2) the change you made that caused the List sequence number to be retained by each entry when a list is sorted, and (3) the change you made to remove the numbers altogether when a list is sorted.
In many of them I explained why I preferred that original method, and the functionality that has been lost as a result of those changes.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12 

(Col_Needham liked my posts 2 an 3, so at the time

 I assumed that he was sympathetic to my cause.)

Links to posts I have added:
13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   Finito

Long before I had heard of Doctorow's book on the "enshittification" problem,
I recognized and explained here that once services like IMDb, Spotify, and YouTube achieve a virtual monopoly on the services they provide, they no longer have to be concerned about whether their existing users are happy with the changes they make, because those users have no place else to go.

@Col_Needham​ 

It's now starting to get a bit confusing, perhaps I misunderstood MSebring. But what's clear is that both me and MSebring want to see numbers, because they serve a purpose.

Like I said before, there is no confusion for me, because I know when I'm going to sort the list in a different way, obviously the list will be renumbered.

Let's say that I sort some list by Alphabetical order, then of course I know that all movies starting with the letter A, will be listed in let's say the 1 to 50 range (as example), I don't see how on earth these movies would be able to retain the number they had when everything is sorted by List order for example.

So let's take this list as example, how on earth can I expect for example number 8 (Scream 2) to retain number 8 when I re-sort the list (Alphabetical), what am I missing? Are we perhaps talking about something else? Why did other people get confused?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls4170769906/?ref_=uspf_t_1&sort=list_order%2Casc&view=grid

By the way, this list is sorted by List order which is the same as Date added. But the funny thing is that if you switch from List order to Date added, the numbering disappears, while it's the exact same list, in the exact same order! Does this make any sense to you?

@Col_Needham​ 

Here is another example, just to make sure we are on the same page, and I'm not misunderstanding. I recently watched 2001 Maniacs, so now it's on number 638 on my Already Seen Movies list. This is obviously when it's sorted by Date added/List order.

Now I re-sort the list by Alphabetical order, and just as EXPECTED, it's now listed as number 5 on the list, because all movies that start with a number (or letter A) are listed first. So why would anyone get confused by this?

Why would I expect 2001 Maniacs to retain the 638 number? It would defy all logic if I expected this, or if I got confused by this. So again I have to ask, what am I missing?

Actually, I even saw that when you switch from ascending to descending order, the numbers also disappear, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, because it's basically a mirrored list, and obviously all movies will (or should) get a new number.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls4170769906/?ref_=uspf_t_1&page=3&view=grid

(Scroll down for movie 638, the last movie on the list)

@MSebring​ 

By the way, did you check out my second post, about 2001 Maniacs? Is everthing clearly explained? I'm just checking, because I find this whole situation pretty weird and almost absurd, I have never seen anything like this. I still don't understand the exact reason why numbering disappears upon re-sorting of lists. So let's get to the bottom of this.

@Navin2000​ 
I believe we are dealing with people who have their fingers in their ears and are not really listening to what we have to say, because they have already made a decision based on questionable data (was anyone here included in their poll?), and they don't want to admit that or reverse their decision. The fact that they are not listening to us was pretty evident when Col_Needham claimed that, unlike you, I didn't want the entries to be renumbered when a list is sorted, when I have explained in more than a dozen posts that I am in agreement with your position.

This post contains links to the most important posts where I explained my position.

@MSebring​ 

I think Col_Needham might have misunderstood you, when he claimed that you and I wanted different things.

But I hope he can explain to me, if he personally finds it logical to expect that 2001 Maniacs will retain number 638, even when the list is sorted by Alphabetical order. Still no answer on this from him, or other IMDB staff members, strangely enough.

@Navin2000​ Personally I prefer the numbers to be present and I used the same process outlined at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/numbering-disappears-after-sorting-list-order/69a7fe3c1f84b211a9e06405?commentId=69a8068dec7541710b9c945e to write a Tamper Monkey script to put them back when you first asked about this.  Like you, I am in the minority on this one, but I no longer have to face the issue; the fix took two minutes.

We have to design for the majority, which is why we always carefully build and test site features at scale where typically 50% of customers see one version and the other 50% see the other version so we can measure the results (or 33/33/33 if there are three versions and so on). See https://share.google/pBKvpoUJ1TPqWJXlo for more information on this.  

Hope this helps.  

@Col_Needham​ 

The point that Navin2000 and I have been trying to make you understand is we don't believe that you are really designing for the majority. We are not convinced that whoever you polled accurately represents your user base.

1. It makes no sense to us that a method that has been used for years and years suddenly became confusing to the majority of your users. (It's like all of a sudden most people got confused that green means go and red means stop, so the traffic lights had to be changed.)

2. As far as we can tell, none of us long time List makers who understand the benefits of the original design were included in your poll.

Who you choose to poll makes a difference.

I often wonder if you people chose who you would poll so that you would get the answer you wanted, or if for some reason you chose mostly people who were new to the list feature, and their confusion with the numbering was simply a result of their unfamiliarity with the feature. If you polled long time users who understand the concept of relative line numbers and how they can be useful, you would get a different result.

I also find it a bit suspicious that when the numbers were originally removed, many people asked why and got no answer. Then, months later, we were told that they were removed because we couldn't agree, and that just as many people liked the new way as liked the old way (which didn't make much sense to us since many more people here spoke out in favor of the original method). And sometime after that we were told that the results of a poll (that as far as we know, none of us participated in) showed that most people preferred having no numbers at all when a list is sorted, because some people found them confusing.

Senator:  Fletcher, there's an old saying: "To the victors belong the spoils."
Fletcher: There's another old saying, Senator: "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

@Navin2000​ 

I am beginning to wonder if both IMDb's primary audience and focus have evolved (and I'm not certain which is the cause and which is the effect).
 
There was a time when the List feature was primarily used by more advanced users/viewers, the true movie fanatics who could list more than 1,000 favorite films. But now we may have become a minority. I think there are a lot more casual users/viewers now who have never seen a black and white or foreign film, and some who don't know anything about movies before the 21st century. So trendiness is now more important than history.
 
And though somewhere along the way, we got the impression that the List feature was designed for movie fanatics like us, the people who are in charge of IMDb now don't see it that way. They are only interested in the numbers. Naturally we feel betrayed, but there is nothing we can do to change their minds, and unfortunately there is nowhere else to go.

It appears that all of the other long time users impacted by this have given up. Maybe some of them have left. Sometimes it's unpleasant to remember the way things used to be and realize they won't ever be that way again. Vita pergit. Accipere res ut sunt.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

@Col_Needham​ 

OK, so you also find it weird and illogical? And I already explained that I don't want to make use of yet another extension, because of browser security reasons.

Perhaps you can answer my questions in the other thread, see links. I would like an explanation about why certain people believe that 2001 Maniacs should retain its number when you switch from Date added to sort by Alphabet, how is this mathematically possible?

I also wonder if you guys perhaps got trolled by people who responded to the poll. Again, it doesn't make any sense to get confused by a feature that works like intended, and has always worked in a certain way. IMDB should be smarter, you guys are better than this!

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/numbering-disappears-after-sorting-list-order/69a7fe3c1f84b211a9e06405?commentId=69a800ad1f84b211a9e076cb&replyId=6aa10c357b7da2c711c7d6b1

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/numbering-disappears-after-sorting-list-order/69a7fe3c1f84b211a9e06405?commentId=69a800ad1f84b211a9e076cb&replyId=6aa111da40158a76c8fb387f