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.