brandon_oldenhof's profile

1 Message


110 Points

Tue, Sep 24, 2013 4:21 PM


Lists: Multiple selections to filter the lists by

In the feature films 2013 lists, you can only select one thing to sort the list by, like US Release Date. But I usually want to select more than one to sort the list by, like US Release Date AND the User Rating.




1.9K Messages


146.1K Points

8 y ago

Only being able to sort by one item at a time is a pretty universal way of doing things because how do you work out which is the primary sorting field?

The only way it'd work is if you did the sort by a primary category like date and then if any film was released on the same date then it'd be sorted by the secondary field, the rating. I'd imagine if you could do that for the movie data you'd notice very little difference between that and a sorting on the primary category. Which is why this isn't usually offered as an option, because it is a lot of hassle to implement for very little gain.

Unless I've misunderstood what you are after.

233 Messages


17.4K Points

8 y ago

Wikipedia manages to sort lists by several criteria. For instance, try this page:
If you sort by % water, you get one result. If you then choose one of the other columns, and then % water again, the listing will be ordered differently than the first time you hit % water.

So it is fully possible to implement what the OP asks for with some clever JavaScripting or other code. And it would be very helpful and make the site more user-friendly and flexible.

2 Messages


130 Points

8 y ago

It's really pretty easy to pick which is the primary sorting field and which is the secondary. Just do it like Netflix does it. Have it to where the first field you select is the secondary field, and the second field you select is the primary field.

Sounds backwards, but it's intuitive in action once you try it once.

An example...I want my 1800 rated movies sorted by "my rating - descended," plus alphabetized. I make two clicks. First I click the alphabetize column, then I click the ratings. Now all the 10s are grouped alphabetically. And the 9s. And the 8s. Etc.

As for whether a second sorting field would make a big enough different to matter, go look at the "order" in any fields other than the primary. It's completely random...there is no order. Sorting by rating and alphabet is hugely different than just sorting by rating.

This paragraph is the most important. I was going through adjusting all my 5+ ratings just now, and I kept having to start over because when you change one, the list from that point forward is jacked up. If all the movies are randomized other than the primary field, it's impossible to know if the list from that point forward is intact or modified. When going through 4000 movies, yeah this difference is huge. And having to start over because of this even just once sucks.

The only good counter argument I see is that IMDb shouldn't waste resources on this, but I'm not buying it. This seems very easy and quick to implement. And for a site like this, for movie lovers, the primary movie rating site for most people in the West, it seems like this feature would have been added a decade ago.