Lists: Multiple selections to filter the lists by

  • 5
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
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.
Photo of Brandon Oldenhof

Brandon Oldenhof

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 5
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3006 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 418 Posts
  • 560 Reply Likes
Wikipedia manages to sort lists by several criteria. For instance, try this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
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.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3006 Reply Likes
Oh it is possible (I didn't say it wasn't) but it depends on the data - on that list you have a lot of places with 0% water, so being able to have a secondary sort means there will be a big difference at the bottom of the table (no difference at all at the top), but the data on IMDB is fine-grained and varied enough that it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference.

So on this search, there are only a few titles with the same rating:

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?rele...

And being able to add a secondary sort would only shift a title a couple of places on the page, all within the same bit of screen real estate.

So the differences would be pretty minor and I am still unsure that the extra time required to implement the coding (both server side and client side) could really be justified when the results wouldn't be that noticeable and there might not be a huge amount of demand for it. The latter, of course, will be tested by this suggestion, so we'll see.

Personally I won't +1 it, as I wouldn't use it (despite using search a lot) and I'd rather IMDB focused its time and resources in other areas that would make big differences to a lot of people's users experience. But, as I say, we'll see how popular this is and it is only my opinion.
Photo of cartman_1337

cartman_1337

  • 418 Posts
  • 560 Reply Likes
You could do it like this; whatever you click on first would become the primary sort. So if you click on US release date, then that would be the primary sort. If you click on Your Rating, that would be the primary sort. And so on. And then whatever you click on next would be the secondary sort. Perhaps a button to clear the filter if you want to start over.

Depending on what you search on, there could be a large enough data mass for a sorting of US release date to make sense, and sorting by your own ratings would definitely make sense if you have rated a fair bit of movies.
Photo of Millie

Millie

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3006 Reply Likes
Good point about your own ratings - that is definitely somewhere this would make a really big difference.