Bug or MASSIVE IMDb change?

[AdamH]

Another thing I've found with the new de-improved lists: if you try to add something by searching for title, you have to hope it's within the first 8 hits 'cause that's all it seems to give you. If it's not there, you have to google it to find the imdb code. It also seems to totally exclude shorts from this search. Seems even more limited than ICM's search facility and that's saying something!

I might be mistaken but it looked like it showed the translated English titles rather than the original titles as well? I know lots of films better by their original title so that would be a nightmare. I could be wrong but I think that's how it looked when I was adding films to a list at the weekend.

The whole layout and the functionality of it is terrible. I feel like there's a general trend on websites of changing things for the sake of style and losing out on important features.

Worrying move in general, as well (as seen by the IMDb forums closure), of moving towards social media rather than forums. I detest posting things on Twitter or Facebook. Absolutely full of people talking complete nonsense (and huge amounts of ignorance as well) and short messages. It's a terrible way to communicate as a replacement for forums.

[Onderhond]

Can't say I miss the drag & drop functionality, draggin a film 90 positions up was a crappy experience and you couldn't drag between the 100s as the content was paged. I pretty much learned to work with the numbers anyway.

[xianjiro]

y'all know about Film Boards, right? They captured (as best I remember) the old IMDb comments and launched on a new site. I use it about as much as the old IMDb comments - which means little and only when I'm curious about something like 'So, why did the protagonist constantly play with a plastic jug lid?' Sometimes it can be informative to see what others think.

Otherwise, yeah, looks like IMDb is intent on being so phone-user-friendly that it will be mostly useless otherwise. Programmers rarely seem to want to be too different from the look/feel of every other website and it's clear 'simplification' is big this year. Guessing soon sites will be going content free.

I learned a long time ago never to rely on a website for something that I considered important. They either require payment, lower functionality, or vanish overnight and poof - my content was gone as well. The other thing, I use something like Google Drive (yeah, it's got a new name, don't it?) so infrequently that every time I do try to use it, it's so different I have trouble using it. I'm tired of the endless upgrade/degrade 'improvement' cycle!

[AdamH]

Can't say I miss the drag & drop functionality, draggin a film 90 positions up was a crappy experience and you couldn't drag between the 100s as the content was paged. I pretty much learned to work with the numbers anyway.

Drag and drop was absolutely terrible, yes. Truth be told, making/editing lists on IMDb has been awful for as long as I can remember although it looks and works even worse now.

[AdamH]

y'all know about Film Boards, right? They captured (as best I remember) the old IMDb comments and launched on a new site. I use it about as much as the old IMDb comments - which means little and only when I'm curious about something like 'So, why did the protagonist constantly play with a plastic jug lid?' Sometimes it can be informative to see what others think.

Otherwise, yeah, looks like IMDb is intent on being so phone-user-friendly that it will be mostly useless otherwise. Programmers rarely seem to want to be too different from the look/feel of every other website and it's clear 'simplification' is big this year. Guessing soon sites will be going content free.

I learned a long time ago never to rely on a website for something that I considered important. They either require payment, lower functionality, or vanish overnight and poof - my content was gone as well. The other thing, I use something like Google Drive (yeah, it's got a new name, don't it?) so infrequently that every time I do try to use it, it's so different I have trouble using it. I'm tired of the endless upgrade/degrade 'improvement' cycle!

I kind of feel like iCM.com fits into the general trend of that as well to be honest.

I hope it doesn't suddenly disappear. I guess it won't be around forever either.

[Onderhond]

Programmers rarely seem to want to be too different from the look/feel of every other website and it's clear 'simplification' is big this year.

Let's be fair here, programmers are rarely in lead of redesigns and with a company like Amazon backing IMDb, you can be sure it's a bit more scientific. There's plenty of stats available and desktop users are more and more a niche these days. I'm pretty sure that "maintaining lists" is somewhat of an outlier functionality, only used by a small, hardcore group of IMDb users. These decisions aren't made by programmers, they're made by management based on statistics.

Leaving these things around in their current state will reflect badly on the site as a whole, so often these things are just scrapped or reworked into simpler versions, so they can be maintained more easily.

I figured that as a film fan, you should be quite used to being forgotten by your favorite industry

[brokenface]

Can't say I miss the drag & drop functionality, draggin a film 90 positions up was a crappy experience and you couldn't drag between the 100s as the content was paged. I pretty much learned to work with the numbers anyway.

Drag and drop was absolutely terrible, yes. Truth be told, making/editing lists on IMDb has been awful for as long as I can remember although it looks and works even worse now.

Drag and drop was horrible for making big moves but useful for fine tuning.

[OldAle1]

Agree with brokenface on drag and drop; it will make doing my lists *slightly* more of a hassle now but not much. Not being able to easily access titles through the standard search, especially shorts, is a much bigger issue to me.

Oh, and something else has just disappeared today - no more sorting reviews, they just appear in order of "helpfulness".

It's all about pleasing the smartphone users, and saying a big FU to everybody else, obviously. Amazon has been going this route for a while (much harder to sort your wishlists than it used to be) so not really surprising. It's just sad that everything, absolutely every fucking thing, has to be made so as to please only the lowest common denominator. Was that what the Internet was for?

I guess it's what the whole human race is for.

[Onderhond]

It's just sad that everything, absolutely every fucking thing, has to be made so as to please only the lowest common denominator.

The majority of the users.

Also, making things work for all your users is a noble cause. Scrapping functionality to get there is the cheap way out of course, but often the only viable one. Sites are expensive and most people simply aren't willing to pay for using them.

Ideally, the internet would be all free, even free from ads. But that would mean companies should be shunned from the web, or at least serve everyone equally. Can't turn back time I'm afraid

[AdamH]

You think they'll ever remove ratings on IMDb?

I suppose the IMDb top 250 is of big value for them so it's a reason they might keep it. They already got rid of the Top 50s.

I feel like the general trend online is to move away from real, substantial contribution from users towards tweets and Facebook comments that can be deleted and controlled easily and take no effort or thought to write.

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

Agree with brokenface on drag and drop; it will make doing my lists *slightly* more of a hassle now but not much. Not being able to easily access titles through the standard search, especially shorts, is a much bigger issue to me.

Oh, and something else has just disappeared today - no more sorting reviews, they just appear in order of "helpfulness".

It's all about pleasing the smartphone users, and saying a big FU to everybody else, obviously. Amazon has been going this route for a while (much harder to sort your wishlists than it used to be) so not really surprising. It's just sad that everything, absolutely every fucking thing, has to be made so as to please only the lowest common denominator. Was that what the Internet was for?

I guess it's what the whole human race is for.

Thanks for highlighting this. The review sorting function and the drop-down results for list-making were two of the functions that I used most. Needham's site is going down the toilet.

[Carmel1379]

The trend towards micromedia and smartphone functionality is obvious. The site is being moved to IMDb's facebook or twitter page, where content is continually created for the "likers", commenters and retweeters that generate much more traffic than any message boards, lists (I'm also reminded when they deleted the ability to comment on a list with your IMDb account in 2012-13, which was replaced with the facebook commenting services), or user reviews (that I expect are going to go next). The ratings and IMDb top 250 are foundational, so they won't go away, but apart from providing a number, a like, or a brief comment, there's won't be anything else left.

It's obviously not unreasonable from their part, as Onderhond says, it's a statistical strategic decision. But what then must "we" (the non-LCD to use OldAle's term), who are willing to discuss films for a longer time than just during your 5 minute metro ride next to an ad for said film, or generate poll results from our own lists and knowledge, do? Exit, split; raising complaints ("using your voice") is not going to get you anywhere - this dislocated forum is the best platform we can get and stay on, and if anything, the execrable IMDb updates should stimulate us to make this place even better.

[Onderhond]

But what then must "we" (the non-LCD to use OldAle's term), who are willing to discuss films for a longer time than just during your 5 minute metro ride next to an ad for said film, or generate poll results from our own lists and knowledge, do?

Reside in forums like this one, which is where we belong. For a while the internet lived above its means, with discussion platforms made available everywhere. The problem there is that forums and comment threads became spam-infested and monitoring it became very expensive. Money that sides didn't have, let alone were willing to spend. So rather than forums and comment threads everywhere, with 1% of the visitors actually using them, we now have likes and shares, which have a much higher conversion rate.

Part of the problem is that quality of conversation is a metric currently unavailable. Each conversation is equal, meaning that a 3-paragraph post is equally important in the stats than a single-touch like. I'm sure that'll balance out again over time, but we can't rightfully expect big sites to spend a lot of time and effort to cater to the 1%.

Thoughful discussion is a niche (and always has been), what we're seeing now is just a natural rebalancing.

Edit: to be clear, I hate this evolution too, but it's hard to make a case against it besides saying "I used to get this and I want to keep getting it regarless. Bah! Humbug!"

[Carmel1379]

But what then must "we" (the non-LCD to use OldAle's term), who are willing to discuss films for a longer time than just during your 5 minute metro ride next to an ad for said film, or generate poll results from our own lists and knowledge, do?

Reside in forums like this one, which is where we belong. For a while the internet lived above its means, with discussion platforms made available everywhere. The problem there is that forums and comment threads became spam-infested and monitoring it became very expensive. Money that sides didn't have, let alone were willing to spend. So rather than forums and comment threads everywhere, with 1% of the visitors actually using them, we now have likes and shares, which have a much higher conversion rate.

Part of the problem is that quality of conversation is a metric currently unavailable. Each conversation is equal, meaning that a 3-paragraph post is equally important in the stats than a single-touch like. I'm sure that'll balance out again over time, but we can't rightfully expect big sites to spend a lot of time and effort to cater to the 1%.

Thoughful discussion is a niche (and always has been), what we're seeing now is just a natural rebalancing.

Edit: to be clear, I hate this evolution too, but it's hard to make a case against it besides saying "I used to get this and I want to keep getting it regarless. Bah! Humbug!"

Well yes, I completely agree. An escape to alternatives, splintering dependence from IMDb, is paramount, this forum is its own (micro-)platform that can do its own things. And IMDb is a privately owned company of which none of us is a shareholder, they can obviously do whatever the hell they want.

Moderation isn't a problem for them now either, if anything any kind of spam and trolling (now) helps them. As you said: "each conversation is equal". They'd much rather have a thousand seemingly-automated, badly spelled facebook or youtube comments to ten thoughtful message boards posts. With an increasing population, with increasing access to phones, with decreasing attention spans, the market is going to lean in favour of those masses. IMDb adapts, like any other company, to these changing trends, and they naturally want to expand their reach, culling statistically unnecessary features that satisfy only a handful of committed users. But those users, instead of succumbing to the IMDb changes, ought to create their own spaces and forums, just like we're doing - "refugees".

[Onderhond]

The big difference between the IMDb forum and Facebook comment is reputation I guess. The IMDb forums had a rather bad name (reflecting badly on IMDb), while the same kind of posts on Facebook would just be Facebook posts. A lot of big sites have had to deal with that and a lot of them acted the same: kill their fora/comment threads.

As for decreasing attention spans, I don't think it's really a sign of the times. Just that in the good old days of the php fora (like this one) the internet wasn't as widespread. Now everyone is on it and everyone means a lot of people who are way less dedicated. Whose way of participation correlates with a click rather than a 3-paragraph post. That's still one click better than the TV generation before us though ;)

It's also a matter of UX (and wrongful interpretation of UX), where any kind of friction is seen as a bad thing, regardless of quality of output. The idea is to make things as easy as possible for the user, but imo you need a base level of friction to get something worthwhile out of it. A like is really the easiest thing there is (just one click), but it holds very little value. A forum post requires effort (and so less people will be inclined to participate), the one post is way more valuable than 100 likes. UX is rather holy these days though, hence the focus on (over)simplicity.

My guess is that things will balance out again, but for now we're all just tweeting (they doubled the number of characters though) and liking shit. It's a rather sad state of affairs, but soon enough we'll notice we're not doing ourselves any favors. Facebook and Twitter are getting a lot of flack these days, hopefully a better platform will emerge soon enough.

[Carmel1379]

By allowing Facebook comments under lists, or by moving the message boards in favour of Facebook and other social medias, they displaced the moderation problem to those other platforms (and you are not going to honestly say facebook or youtube comments are "reputable", it's just that they're ubiquitous). But a big loss with respect to the obliteration of message boards on IMDb however, is not those big, general boards such as Film General, Movie Awards, the Soapbox or Sandbox (which were, indeed, troll-infested and badly reputed), but all the smaller boards on each individual film that people who didn't even have IMDb accounts would check out. Some of those smaller boards were of course reserved for banter, but those are only a small subset among many that did reflect some quality - I'd say they didn't have a bad reputation as such.

But it's not just message boards, it's also private messaging and 'friends' - interconnection between users has been completely stopped, now other users just exist as lists and reviews providers, and now even those are being hampered with. The cluster of connections and relations have been displaced to pathetic "tagging" on facebook.

"decreasing attention span" - That may not be the exact term for it, but I'd say that's definitely a trend. Just look at the success of Snapchat. Faster, more twitchy, agitated, efficient, compressed info-entertainment dissemination. Related to your 3rd paragraph where you said UX makes things as easy as possible to the viewer. Nowadays you won't find one classroom or lecture hall in the Occident which doesn't have a student becoming bored after 5 minutes and taking out his phone. [Me too, my text under my avatar says "too wired to concentrate".] 100 years ago that wasn't possible, and even if a student back then were to start 'daydreaming' in class, he'd still be more embedded within the local classroom environment than a kid now interacting in cyberspace. Standardly comprehended "literacy" I'm sure is decreasing among kids in the Occident, while the manner in which they write on messenger or snapchat is increasing.

I wasn't actually too much in favour of the doubling of Twitter characters (for reasons of exercises in succinctness, micro-cognitive enhancement, etc. - now it's just too languish), but that's besides the point. I can't foresee if things will balance out or not, but I'm definitely eagerly awaiting Facebook's competition.

[Onderhond]

and you are not going to honestly say facebook or youtube comments are "reputable"

Definitely not, but the difference is that they don't reflect back on IMDb directly. When people said the IMDb boards were a toxic, troll-infested place (regardless of how valid that was), that reflected badly on IMDb. When the comments on Facebook and YouTube are toxic, that reflects back on these services, not so much on the people owning the channels that generate these comments. The nature of the comments might still be the same, but going from "Ugh, IMDb forum" to "Ugh, Facebook crap" is a big win for them.

On the upside, a service like Facebook made a lot of people way more approachable. My list of connections there is in part populated by directors, people who I can now contact directly and ask stuff personally. It's also a great news source for keeping track of new music (from labels directly). To have all that bundled on one platform is quite powerful. So even though I hate comments moving to Facebook, that's just a part of what that platform offers.

As for the decreasing attention span of kids, I guess there's some truth in it. Though SnapChat is more of a reaction against the lasting power of the internet, a solution for people who just want to share something and not be reminded of it 5 years down the line (because that comment or picture is still accessible to the whole world). I do agree that there seems to be a decrease in focus amongst young people, but instead they seem way more capable of making all sorts of different connections. It's the difference between encyclopedic knowledge and Google. One gives you indepth info about a particular subject, the other gives you a myriad of connections regarding that one topic. Both are extremely valuable (and if you want a film about that, I can recommend Honey PuPu, which seems targeted at that Google generation), just different.

But doubling back on IMDb's recent changes, I'd suggest that everyone hating on IMDb just tries to make their own alternative, you'll soon find that cost and complexity are hard to manage, not to mention the stress of staying relevant. You must be some kind of philanthropist to keep an ideal version of IMDb in the air for longer than a year or two.

[xianjiro]

omg cmpleet sentces and pargrafs and stf! WoW!

lulz

[Carmel1379]

Definitely not, but the difference is that they don't reflect back on IMDb directly.

True, good point.

I don't mean to hate on Facebook too much, everything you said is true, and there are many benefits to it, sure. You get a personalised feed which (mostly) consists of pages and groups of your choice (broadening your interests, information, or entertainment (memetic content)), you can choose to attach other profiles as friends (or not), you can keep connections with those you wouldn't expect to (because of geographic divide), it tracks events for you, allows extremely fast communication, etc. But most of it is just daft, the streams of collected data floating through it are dumb and worthless, generated by people naively uploading their crass pitiful narcissistic 'identities'. But this is obviously always going to be the case. And facebook has conquered the world, sucking everyone in. And you do have to adapt, lest you perish.

If you make a screenshot of a snapchat from someone it informs that other person, right?

Your distinction between in-depth ("encyclopaedic") vs. broad ("Google") knowledge I find a bit simplistic at the moment, but you are onto something. Certainly academia and how it has changed and will change under the influence of the Internet is worth looking into. The Internet, with its vast informational resources, is a little paradoxical in this respect, because you can delve into almost any topic and thus disproving ("fact-checking") some form of real-life proposition suggested by someone else, but on the other hand, it's a place where deep schisms and divides will occur, and where you can find "evidence" for and against the exact same proposition, thus increasing illusions, uncertainty, entropy, and a 'lack' of knowledge. The creation of new, isolated "bubbles". "The net is vast and infinite."

Well, you certainly need a substantial group of people (or philanthropic intents, as you said) to create an alternative; I'm not going to create my own zetaboards site by myself and hope people will come in. But for example letterboxd, a competitor to IMDb, reacts to IMDb's changes (e.g. after the message boards shut-down, it allowed everyone to upload their ratings for free, hoping to attract "refugees"). It's just the same old market demand-supply structure, where we, consumers, are free to choose between alternatives and set-up our own companies if we like. Obviously our icmforum.com doesn't generate any monetary revenue, but in a sense all our traffic, communication, lists, and so on - they're all capital and information too, created, transferred, energised. When a new user joins the forum, he invests part of his (energetic, informational, cognitive) 'wealth' to "our products", and contributes to those "products" that "sell" this forum to the outside world.

Honey PuPu - Thanks, that makes me more eager to see it; I've already got the file.

[Jimi Antiloop]

Can't say I miss the drag & drop functionality, draggin a film 90 positions up was a crappy experience and you couldn't drag between the 100s as the content was paged. I pretty much learned to work with the numbers anyway.

I was going with the numbers as well, but the killed the very compact view. What for soever. Now it takes a more time to rearrange things, specially when it is a big list.

[xianjiro]

I find myself wondering how these changes affect the PRO userbase. Can't imagine paying for this decreased functionality.

The one thing I wish iCM did was allow us to respond to individual comments and notify users "so-and-so responded this this comment. Yes, we can do say "in reference to so-and-so's comment..." but that's really only of use to those who come after. How many of us regularly review all the films on which we've commented to see what retorts have been made?

Then there is always the gap in time. I watch a movie and it might be months/years before anyone else does. That sort of thing. Even if they ask "what was X about?", what chance is there I'll remember that particular film in enough detail to engage in meaningful discourse.

So I just default to seeing if I can find anything others have written about "Rosebud". Easy in this case, but 'the white rose dropped in the third scene of some obscure foreign film ... I gave up 'understanding' everything a long time back.

[Onderhond]

But most of it is just daft, the streams of collected data floating through it are dumb and worthless, generated by people naively uploading their crass pitiful narcissistic 'identities'.

"Greater than the sum of its parts" I guess. You're right that many things on the web are without value seen by themselves, but as part of a larger whole they get meaning. Finding all these different angles in one (big) place is really the what makes the internet worthwhile. It's not just about facts or simple truths, but about how a wide variety of people interprets and handles these facts.

I don't think much has changed in a practical sense of the world, only that the internet has visualized all of this much better than before. I mean, the human brain is very bad with big numbers and scale, which is why people going in space and looking back at the Earth get certain epiphanies. Or simply the difference between sitting in a car and thinking "all those people living their lives in this city" (which is quite abstract) vs getting into an air balloon and seeing the city like an ants nest. I think that's where the strength of the internet lies. And sure, many people are just ants, especially older ones who are way more used to getting their information from one source, but I feel this "lack of knowledge" you describe is just a better understanding of the complexity of truth. I mean, one of the first signs of intelligence is realizing how little you know

As for letterboxd, still need to check that out, but what I've seen doesn't immediately appeal to me. It's maybe a bit too visual, with a strong focus on posters (which is fine if you're looking at the art, but sucks if you're actually trying to figure out the titles). But yeah, they're IMDb's competitor and they'll use whatever faults IMDb makes to draw people towards them. They're at the point where companies are the most user-friendly right now. Once they're the biggest player, that's when you'll see them change into the new IMDb.

[Onderhond]

The one thing I wish iCM did was allow us to respond to individual comments and notify users "so-and-so responded this this comment. Yes, we can do say "in reference to so-and-so's comment..." but that's really only of use to those who come after. How many of us regularly review all the films on which we've commented to see what retorts have been made?

ICM isn't really made to foster a writing community. The comments are only a secondary feature and there is no page like the "active topics" page on this forum, that keeps track of updates. The fact that comments below films are a little underused is baked into the design of ICM I'm afraid, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Just compare it to this film site, which has the comments front and center below the main information, with a toggle to filter out people's "reviews" from the regular posts. + they have 15 years of community building going for them. Making a site like that is hard and it requires you to design it in such a way that people feel invited to comment and participate. ICM isn't like that right now.

[Armoreska]

Goodbye my favorite episode user rating view with sorting

[Carmel1379]

"Greater than the sum of its parts" I guess.

For sure (holistic), and you get (and need) network effects. And the Internet will and does create competitive structures to Facebook, so its existence only stimulates those (reciprocal competition). The net is by far one of the most complex systems.

(Hence) Agreed on all that (about ants and knowing).

[xianjiro]

Goodbye my favorite episode user rating view with sorting

[AdamH]

I read Fahrenheit 451 recently and I feel slightly like that about forums right now haha. Obliterate them for crappy social media options.

I hope we stay active for many years longer. It will be interesting to see the general trends for forums. I'm on a Hearts forum (the Scottish football team I support) and the forum is incredibly active. Non-stop activity. I don't know if the activity has declined over time. It's hard to tell on very active forums. Maybe it's easier for football forums because there are so many football fans and constant topics to discuss. Matches, signings etc.

This is the only film forum I've ever posted on actively. I've made a handful of posts on other forums (IMDb plus one or two others at most).

Pity we can't gather more people are committed to posting on film forums and sticking to the traditional format. Ironically, we got lucky with IMDb shutting down their forum as we got many new and very good posters on board and it helped us a lot to keep activity. Still feel for the people who lost that forum and posted on it regularly (I very, very rarely posted but the messageboards for individual films/tv series' were often useful).

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I find myself wondering how these changes affect the PRO userbase. Can't imagine paying for this decreased functionality.

Despite them pushing PRO all over the place, the PRO userbase is very much geared towards industry people marketing themselves and/or their movies. I doubt they really care about most of this.

[joachimt]

Speaking of things turning more and more towards social media style...... I recently got myself a Bose Soundcloud 10 and even the remote control has a like- and dislikebutton.

[AdamH]

Goodbye my favorite episode user rating view with sorting

Have they seriously stopped you being able to go onto the episode list and see it by rating?

I often use that. I've been using it to work through The Twilight Zone but I went onto the usual link I use and it's completely changed. What possible reason would they have for removing it?

[nimimerkillinen]

umm if i want to save new order of list do i really have to go to other page for that just to come back?

[flaiky]

Needham has said that there will be more changes announced over the coming weeks. I'm scared, what else is there they can mess with? They've already altered most of their features..?

Any guesses?

I'd really hate them to remove the rating statistics from user pages. Leave them alone, Col.

[Jimi Antiloop]

Goodbye my favorite episode user rating view with sorting

Have they seriously stopped you being able to go onto the episode list and see it by rating?

I often use that. I've been using it to work through The Twilight Zone but I went onto the usual link I use and it's completely changed. What possible reason would they have for removing it?

Fuck! It comes with the fanishing of this very compact view in general.

[insomnius]

I have my viewing preference set to reference view, but today I'm getting the standard look when viewing name pages. I can still see the reference view if I manually change the URL, but who knows for how long. Yay, more "improvements".

[lynchs]

I'm on a Hearts forum (the Scottish football team I support) and the forum is incredibly active. Non-stop activity.

How many supporters do you guys have?

not in the forum lol ... in the country, just for curiosity

[AdamH]

I'm on a Hearts forum (the Scottish football team I support) and the forum is incredibly active. Non-stop activity.

How many supporters do you guys have?

not in the forum lol ... in the country, just for curiosity

We probably average around 16,000/match. Third biggest average crowd in Scotland (behind the bigot brothers aka Celtic and Rangers).

There are many more fans who have moved abroad who post as well. I had a season ticket for many years but I left Edinburgh in December and I've only been to two matches this year (I've only been back to Edinburgh twice and for short visits). I'll go to another match later this month when I'm back for Christmas.

[lynchs]

16,000/match it's a very good number, we can't say the same thing for our league, the average is really poor, but compared with Benfica, 16k/match it's nothing!

Like yours, we also have a huge active forum, sometimes too active, per example in a match day.

[AdamH]

16,000/match it's a very good number, we can't say the same thing for our league, the average is really poor, but compared with Benfica, 16k/match it's nothing!

Like yours, we also have a huge active forum, sometimes too active, per example in a match day.

Which team do you support?

Yeah, I know what you mean about too active. It's impossible to keep up with everything.

[bal3x]

Needham has said that there will be more changes announced over the coming weeks. I'm scared, what else is there they can mess with? They've already altered most of their features..?

Any guesses?

Can they remove the ratings all-together? I mean, who needs them, right? Probably takes a lot of resources to fight the bots...

[AdamH]

Needham has said that there will be more changes announced over the coming weeks. I'm scared, what else is there they can mess with? They've already altered most of their features..?

Any guesses?

Can they remove the ratings all-together? I mean, who needs them, right? Probably takes a lot of resources to fight the bots...

I'm a bit concerned about that now too. I still use it to help find good things to watch (often the ratings are very unreliable but you get used to what to avoid).

They could probably even keep the Top 250 and just hide the ratings from the public.