Why does the IMDB list the most recent item as “1”, then increase so that the oldest entry has the highest number? This means that the numbering changes every time there’s a new entry, and it makes it harder to reference things. Why don’t they have the oldest entry at 1, the next at 2, and so on, with the most recent being the highest number (like a list of academic publications)?
Assuming the suffix on an entry’s name is what you’re talking about. . .
The Roman numeral suffix is simply to make the entry unique. It has no bearing on what is first, only what was entered first. A silent film actor Charles Lane has a “(III)” suffix, although his career predates that of the the much better known actor.
So. . . the suffix has no meaning on who or what came first, only who or what was entered first.
I assume what is meant is the lists on a page like this one, where the list as an actor starts with:
- Eskimo Day (1996) (TV)
and ends with:
- Evensong (1934)
I’d guess it’s because they think that most users of IMDB are interested in the latest movies, which might be in cinemas currently. However, often the older movies are more interesting, e.g., this guy’s no. 61
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
(I’ve put that in spoilers in case people want to guess which actor was in both the 1934 and the 1996 movies)
And if that’s the case the OP is questioning, you still have that problem. Someone is always discovering well known actor as an extra in an old role, which also reshuffles the numbers.
Yes, that’s what I mean. But I’m not proposing changing the order that the entries occur, only that it would now read
- Eskimo Day
… - Evensong
I could swear it used to be that way.