Lists: Offer better selection / control for "Related Lists" feature

Hi Ed Jones

There is always a solution to a problem. First one acknowledges the problem. Then one puts forward suggestions. Then one implements solutions that work. That is what this thread is all about. Why not put forward ideas that are constructive?

Hi Ed Jones

Chill. He! he! What in heaven's name are you on about? As mentioned earlier the purpose of re-activating this thread is to try and promote positive input in regards to constructive changes to user-lists. I have no desire to get into a ridiculous sparring match with you. 

You said you were done commenting. So why do you continue doing so? 

Thoughtful rebuttals? You mean the ones which have no relevance to the topic of this conversation? 

Please try to keep your inflated ego in check.

There is a strong chance that lists would be evaluated more so by what list authors present in the description fields than by the manner in which items are organized within the lists.

Hi Jeorj Euler

True, that is a valid observation.

Hi Ed Jones

The links above are either irrelevant to this discussion, date back years, or do not reflect what the majority of IMDb-users think. I advice anyone following this thread to  refer to the above links and make their own assessment and ascertain just how relevant they really are.

Hi Ed Jones 

Let's put things in perspective:

None of your links are relevant. Why? Because none of them relate to the up / down (Yes / No) function in relation to user-lists, which is the subject of my conversation above.The links you have supplied relate to the subject of "User Reviews".

Also; Your links only reflect what a handful of IMDb users think (years ago) which does not mean that is what the majority of IMDb users think, or, that they still maintain that same opinion. In other words, all you have said is pure conjecture. Also, I stick by my majority statement - please show me proof this is not the case. Where are the myriad of complaints if what you say is true?

"To my knowledge" is self-explanatory, how is that guessing?

Strange, you speak of judgment in favor of my point of view, where you have continuously attempted to do just that from the get-go. Whereas I have attempted to allow others to make up their own minds. Kinda hypocritical would you not say?

I have explained to you clearly, since the start, the reasoning behind me re-activating this thread, but you have decided to disrespect that. You have offered no positive input. Only cynicism. For instance; How can you state: "This will never get implemented because of the animosity it would create." when nothing has been implemented? That is pure conjecture on your part. There is no way to predict what the outcome will be.

Please, let IMDb staff and those at head-office decide what gets implemented and what does not.

No, the links are not relevant. As I have already pointed out, I am referring specifically to "User-Lists" with the Yes/No function attached. And, as you have pointed out, your links point to "User Reviews". The minor discourse you want to sell off as major discourse that relates to "User Reviews" cannot be applied to "User-Lists". Those are two very different entities. Pure conjecture, once again.

Are you kidding me. The voting & rating system on IMDb is based on opinion. That is how people differentiate between good and bad. By your reasoning if down voting is hurtful and only serves to mock the list maker and is not acceptable in today's society, then by your reasoning it should also apply to everything else as well. You are setting a very dangerous precedent, that by any stretch of the imagination is wholly unacceptable in today's society.

This is truly a sad spectacle indeed.

Provide all the links you want, it still does not represent what the majority of IMDb-users think. You are just clutching at straws. 

Get over it and move on, Ed.

Hi, Dr-Faustus. Initially Ed was merely informing you that the voting aspect of IMDb user review system has caused conflict among users. By the way, it is never too clear what a majority of IMDb users think about particular features of the site, so we really wouldn't know for sure. I mean you no offense, but Ed has produced more evidence on the relevant subject matter than you have.

Hi Jeorj Euler 

You appear to be a rational, intelligent, and well-mannered person. Please do me this favor: All I ask of you is read what I have to say without bias. And derive at your own conclusion. Please, don't base your conclusion solely on the fact that you may be friends with another. I am sure you are well aware an "us versus them" mentality unfortunately does not solve problems. Hopefully you can accept that.

I am very aware Ed was "initially" informing me "... the voting aspect of IMDb system has caused conflict among users." I am not disputing that. The fact is, regardless of what system in the public domain is instated, it "will" cause "varying" degrees of conflict. That is a given. However, one must therefor ascertain to what degree. If it is established the pros outweigh the cons, the system remains. Does anyone really think the experts at IMDb and Amazon will allow such a system if they found it to be detrimental to their business model? Of course not. That is why user reviews remain. Here is another example of this: I am sure you are very aware of the public outcry caused by changes to the IMDb main page. Way more in numbers than that of the user reviews. So why don't they simply resort back to the old page? Because IMDb and Amazon policy makers have established most users accept this change. How did they come to that conclusion? The number of complaints is minuscule when compared to the number of users that actually visit IMDb on a daily basis - who, if they were unhappy, would in all likelihood complain about it and thus push the number of complaints up exponentially. Forcing a change. Or, this unhappiness would translate itself in relation to the number of visits on the IMDb main page itself. Therefor, it is very reasonable to establish that the number of satisfied customers lies in the majority, when based on the evidence at hand. By the way, the very lack of evidence itself in so far as complaints are concerned is ironically evidence itself.

You state "... but Ed has produced more evidence on the relevant subject matter than you have." I am sorry, but the relevant subject matter that has been stated over and over again, "ad naseam", is "solutions". Solutions to problems with user-lists.Though it is obviously necessary to take any potential problems into consideration, the topic of the conversation is not simply pointing that out, but finding "solutions". Surely, anyone reading that must understand what that entails. Therefor, either Ed Jones has misunderstood the question, or simply refuses to do so. Making comparisons to user review complaints and then stating a voting system cannot work, based simply on that observation, is pure conjecture. How can one derive at a steadfast conclusion before the fact? It is impossible. Unless someone has the ability to team-travel, that is. I have already pointed out in my previous paragraph issues regarding complaints and their impact.

And lastly, though there is without a doubt a treasure of information on Get Satisfaction, Get Satisfaction cannot be used solely as a means to decide what changes need or need not be made. It must be used in conjunction with numerous other factors, which must be taken into consideration. One has to look at the bigger picture when making any such decisions.

Anyway Jeorj, if you decided to read through this entire post, thanks for taking the time in doing so.

Peace

I have been advised not to enter into any conversations with you. Please respect that from your side.

Thank-you

Well, we're all intelligent. (Expressing this about somebody is almost meaningless.) Regardless how intelligent we are, I did not intend to get Dr-Faustus to reply the way that he has on the subject of our dear Ed here, which should not even be a subject, but every so often he does become something of a topic. I had also forgotten about, or had never been aware of, the existing tension between the two participants of the forum. Certainly, I should have figured (since there a lot of people here who've been in conflict with Ed, at one time or another), but I lean toward assuming that interpersonal conflicts on forums like this one simply go away after a while. Well, they ought! Roughly-speaking, none of us will ever forget the conflicts we have had with other participants of the forum, but it should not be a reason to stay in perpetual doubt about those with whom we have "fought" or "molested" (or "played games with"), so to speak. I suggest trying to assume good faith, like how Wikipedians try to do.

Hi there Jeorj Euler

This is in no way intended to start an argument, but I would just like to point a few things out:

Here is a definition of intelligence; "Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and "problem solving"." What i said, and I quote; "You "appear" to be...intelligent..." Use that in context with the definition given. 

Mentioning "dear" Ed, as you put it, was not something I had planned on doing. However, your previous post, aimed directly for my reading, with my name attached, makes clear mention of Ed. So how can you possibly expect me not to mention him if you directly referred to him in the context of the conversation? That's ridiculous.

I understand you are trying to divert blame to me in starting a conversation about, "you know who". I also stick up for my friends, that's normal. However, a true friend is also willing to tell a friend when he is wrong, or if he doesn't agree to something he has done or said. As mentioned above I asked you to please view this situation without bias.

"Assume good faith" - I agree with that. So let's follow that.

Thanks

I'm not entirely sure that the "problem" clear, though. A year or two ago, I awarded this thread this "me too" heart because it indeed seems like some more tools concerning navigating Related Lists would be useful. Most recently the idea of sorting the default presentation of the lists via algorithmic processing of "popular" conscious feedback has been floated. Right now there aren't any options at all, but instead pages and pages of Related Lists; and for each one, we the IMDb non-staff and Web-surfing public at large only see the primary image associated with the first item in an IMDb list along with the subject heading or moniker assigned to the list by the author of the list. I wish I knew how the existing algorithm already worked. I would work from there as far as thinking of "solutions" to the challenges faced by navigating the Related Lists sections.