Anybody notice the new "track contribution" screen now shows all contributions in that entry

It is working fine for me: Win10/Firefox 52.8.0/French IP

not here, Win10/Firefox 63.0.3/USA

Working for me - macOS/Safari/UK - but I sometimes need to reload if i use the link I saved as a favourite, that gives an error at the first attempt.

Ron,
Have you clicked on "View contribution details"?
It is especially useful when some items are rejected, as IMDb will state why (even though it remains to be improved and finetuned)

Have you clicked on "View contribution details"?

Did you read my comment?
"The new display doesn't show (at a glance) anything about what was submitted."

The new display requires two clicks to display what the old display showed by default (zero clicks).

I think we have a misunderstanding:

in the "old" display (https://contribute.imdb.com/updates/history), you only had the list of submission with their IDs, the date and impacted data types. Period.

in the "new" display (https://contribute.imdb.com/contributions/history, still in test), you can get exactly the same information, plus the status (pending/approved/rejected) and when clicking on "View Contribution Details", the detail of your submission items (before/after) and the rejected items will be explained.

Are we on the same wavelength?

Hi Ron,

Thanks for trying out our new history page!

I understand that not having the information about what data was in your contribution at a glance can be frustrating. Based on the feedback from you and everyone else on this thread, we're exploring ways to improve this new history page and make it more useful for everyone.

Please stay tuned for our progress, and thank you for your help in improving IMDb.

Cheers,
Megan

Thank you for your disclosure, Megan.

Thanks Megan.

I agree with Ron. I’d rather be able to see the type of submission that was submitted on the main contribution history page, as we currently can. You are unable to tell (in beta) if it's a trivia, image, plot summary or cast addition (etc) that has been submitted, whereas you can at the moment. Having to click on "View Contribution Details" to find out this detail is frustrating.

I must say, that I’m very happy to see image submissions have been added to the contribution history!

I disagree with adding more information to the contribution page. It will just clutter up the page and all the information you are looking for is a click away where it makes more sense to display it because it also gives you the status of the those contributions.

I support Adrian's approach.
Now, it would be better if we could have the 2 displays altogether, to be able to assess them better.

I don't see how adding "trivia", "image", "plot summary" would clutter up the page.  Even minimising the image display would still provide ample room for 1-2 words to be added.  

Karen, if you're only adding one or two items at a time, then I agree it doesn't hurt much to add that detail.

But personally, my submissions often include 50-100 items scattered across 20 or more categories, and that's when listing them starts to look like clutter. Here's the summary of one of my submissions earlier today:

90 items
Actress, Miscellaneous, Camera Department, Music Department, Actor, Art Department, Make Up Department, Sound Department, Producer, Assistant Director, Costume Department, Writer, Art Director, Casting Director, Composer, Editorial Department, Soundtrack, Cinematographer, Costume Designer, Editor, Location Management, Production Designer, Production Manager, Running Time

See the problem?

So do I Phil. I average 300-400 submissions a day at the moment.  Since there's a problem with trivia submissions at the moment that IMDB Support have been looking into, I've been submitting more entries in other types of submissions.  Previously I was averaging around 100 trivia items a day.

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't your example above just warrant a "Cast added" or "Crew added"? What does it show in the current contribution history format?  I've never submitted anything to crew, only cast - but do crew submissions actually specify each entry as you've shown above?  I can certainly see how that would be a problem.

(I copied the list above from the new contribution details page, but...) yes, the old history page shows a separate line for each and every department within the crew. As I see it, that level of detail now belongs on the contributions details page, not the main page, but I wouldn't object to a very brief summary such as 'cast, crew, trivia updated' on the main page.

Incidentally, it took me a while to figure out why that list of categories seemed to be in a random order. It looks like the new contributions details page orders the categories according to the number of items I've updated within each.

That order may be of some use to someone, but for me it just makes it much harder to find any specific item within the page. Sorting the categories alphabetically (or better, the same order as the update form) would be more predictable and useful (or for bonus points, let us choose the sort order ourselves).

Adding the summary that appears at the top of the details page - for example 


 would be more compact than the old line by line format. It is more than really needed I think but may perhaps be easier to do.

We have the same problem with the order in that list - number of items order even though the numbers are not there. I agree with Phil G that alphabetical or the same order as the update form would be better. Note that here we have "Miscellaneous" where the update form has "Other Crew" and I think that being last in the Cast and Crew section of the update form is the main difference from alphabetical order in that section.

One way in which I have used the old format summary is when adding credits to another episode of the same series where the number of credits per section tends to be similar even if the credits are not always the same. It is useful to be able to select a suitable number from the "Add x credits" dropdown for each relevant section so that I do not have to go round the re-check cycle adjusting the numbers. Getting to the equivalent information on the new page takes rather longer as you have to view details and then shrink the list of all approved items (or scroll down past all those items) to get to the individual sections with their counts. Having the same order as the update form would be really helpful here too.

Since episode numbers and titles are in a single edit box, I would expect they are handled the same and are both not currently being tracked.

Yes, it states so in the header disclaimer (I mean: not for you specifically!)

Hi Ron,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've flagged this as an issue with the team.

Cheers,
Megan

if you mean on this page, you can use your browser's search function to look for the words "Pending" or "Declined", which should let you loop through any contributions that need attention.

Not sure how reliable this is, but when I tested it just now, searching this way seemed to trigger the loading of more at the end of the page, so it might be able to get you back through the oldest contributions too.

I did the browser search after posting my question, but it took a LOT of time and effort, and when I made a mistake and opened the View Details link without specifying I wanted it in a new tab, I completely lost my place in the search. And in Chrome, it did NOT trigger the loading of more at the end of the page unless I scrolled to the end of the page. 

Which leads me to this feedback: triggering any link on this page should automatically open in a new tab.

I really don't know what you are doing that takes lots of time and effort to find your pending and declined items unless you are trying to find something from months or years ago. I was able to fairly easily scroll back and take a look at contributions from last year. The infinite scroll is much better than clicking a link for the next 50 contributions (especially if you are like me and occasionally fix keywords which can end up with a lot of single item contributions.)

I search daily for what is pending or declined and it really takes almost no effort. I will agree with you that clicking a link on this page should open a new page like the previous contributions page did.

Adrian - 
In Chrome on Windows 10, when the page first loads, I find only 1 occurrence of "decl". I have to scroll down to load more of the page in order to see the next one, which is from only 2 months ago, 5Mar. It would be better if a filter were provided to look at only the contributions where something was declined. And/or this page needs a more compact view, so that more contributions load at once. (And yes, I was trying to look at all of them today, once I realized I finally could see a reason for each. I bookmarked several for follow-up.)

Just tried this page on my phone, and Chrome for Android apparently loads a lot more in the first shot; it found 17 "decl", back to 2018. But a phone is not the best way to look at this stuff, especially not when I have the display pumped up to the largest settings. It only gets worse when I rotate to landscape.

I find navigating this screen easier than the previous version. The infinite scroll loads fast and on Windows 10 with Chrome, you just have to continually hit the end button to get it to load more data. Filters would be nice but I'm guessing as long as this is "beta" it is not a priority. The previous page never gave us a good way to search for a contribution.

My main complain for the page is that it lists TV shows just by the episode title. I usually want to search by the series title.

For episodes. I've found that sometimes the series title is shown alongside the episode title and sometimes it's not. I've yet to figure out what causes the difference (too lazy to check now, but I vaguely remember the issue being raised in this thread before?)

As for the infinite scrolling, that invention would be my first target if I ever get my hands on a time machine. Call me old-fashioned, but I've yet to see any example of infinite scrolling anywhere on the web that I actually like. Give me good old paged navigation every time.

@Adrian - 
You said: "The previous page never gave us a good way to search for a contribution."

The page that is still linked to the contribution confirmation email has this for searching:

But it only shows the contribution itself, not the status.

@Adrian & Phil,
A lot of my contributions this week are to images for episodes, and it seems that the series is displaying on each contrib. (Then again, some of the movies among them might be episodes that I don't recognize as such.) Maybe they include the series consistently with some types of contribs?

This is great feedback - thanks everyone for your suggestions and candor. I'll make sure to pass it along to the team. 

Cheers,
Megan

Eboy - You are correct that I did not mean pending/declined credits within a contribution. I meant I wanted to see all my contributions that had a declined item on them. As I describe above, using browser search for that is tedious and time-consuming. And I don't like the one fluid page aspect of this display. How would anyone contending for the Top Contributor rank possibly use this, unless they submit lots and lots of items on a single contribution.

I DO like being able to see reasons for declined contribs, although many make no sense, especially those from several years ago.

It says at the top of the page that some types are not included.

Peter is correct - title corrections are not yet included on this new history page. We realize the need to see information about all contributed information and are working to include all contributions on this page. 

Thank you for your patience and continued feedback on this Beta experience.

Cheers,
Megan

Thank you for the suggestions! I'll pass those along to the team.

Cheers,
Megan

And now the series title is gone again!

Hopefully, it will be back soon.

As far as I can tell, IMDb staff haven't done any work on the beta page for a long time now. Hopefully they'll return to it at some point, because it really is the most useful update to the site for years (from a contributor perspective at least).

Series titles have been appearing occasionally, but inconsistently since the page was very new, and I see that it was back in January that I reported the display bug with certain characters in the series titles.

At the very least, a response from a staffer would be nice...

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for reporting this issue. We're aware of problems with series titles appearing inconsistently and certain characters displaying incorrectly and having this specific example will be useful for the team to use when investigating.

I'll update this page as we make progress on these and the other issues that have been brought to our attention.

Cheers,
Megan

I think I've finally figured out the mystery of the inconsistent series titles (and just in time, if it's about to be fixed... staff may already know this, but I'm a little bit proud to have puzzled it out on my own!)

Let's see if I can explain this clearly...

Take a TV series you've never made contributions for before, and edit an episode. The submission will show up on the Beta Contributions History page with the episode title only; no series title and no hint that it is actually an episode.

Now make a submission at series-level and reload the Beta page.  This time, the submission for the episode will show the series title (with some characters/html-entities in the series title double-escaped and looking bad - this bug seems to be clearly related, you'll note from my old example that the series title displays properly on the series-level contribution).

Here's the curious part (and also the part I find tricky to explain clearly)... the series title will only show if a series-level contribution is also loaded in the same group as the episode submission.  If the series-level contribution was already visible when you hit the bottom of the page and the episode-level contribution does not appear until that annoying infinite-scroll loads more, then the episode submission will not show the series title.  Is that clear, or have I just confused everyone completely?

If I've got it right, it seems an odd way of doing it to me: omitting the series title from the data for the episode contribution itself and just hoping to pick it up from a nearby contribution which may or may not appear.  But I have no idea how the back-end works so maybe this is actually the best way?

This is still a problem. I have been adding credits to episodes and they show up with only the episode title. For a series where I also added some missing episodes, the series title appears on all the contributions to episodes of that series.

If I scroll down the page far enough the missing series title shows up just above the most recent contribution where I added the data via the series page rather than the individual episode pages.

I recently (16Sep) requested a title change as part of a contribution, and it was NOT listed among the items.

I don't know that any other contributions listed (i.e. title changes and name changes and movie connections) have been affected but cast completion is new (something I've done for years and this is the first time I noticed it on the tracking page.)

It appears that this function isn't really working correctly. First, the estimated processing date is always "Calculating". Second, all of mine still seem to be "processing" though they have appear to have completed. Take example, last night's Fear the Walking Dead episode.

Hi Adrian,

Well spotted! We are working on launching tracking for cast and crew completion. 

Thank you for reporting this issue with the status being incorrect. I've told the team, and they're looking into it now. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Cheers,
Megan

We are working on launching tracking for cast and crew completion.

I'm happy to hear that!

Hi Adrian,

Yes, you should see proper status updates for all new cast/crew completeness items you submit. 

Please let us know if you experience any other problems with these contributions, and thanks again for bringing this issue to our attention.

Cheers,
Megan