Site Feedback

Similar to that other person's post, I think creating a second entry (not by moving completed games back to replay list) is the intended way to log replays in order for the system to not auto mark your first playthrough as a replay. Putting already completed games back to the replay list is probably not what the list is for, if you want to play a game you already finished (even if its the same platform, 3rd/4th playthrough, etc.), create a new entry for it.

Okay, I agree, making a new entry just makes more sense. I was honestly just trying out a different way of organising things to see if they worked better. I've always made new entries before for basically the same reason.
But If this is intended behaviour for tracking reasons like you mentioned being in the other thread, I personally don't agree with the change because of the confusion this will cause for people who put their completed games in the replay list, which I imagine is a large amount of people. As you can see, it's already messed with both mine and that other guys completed list a little bit, so in my opinion I think it would be worth Everdred disabling that automatic feature to avoid messing with more peoples completed lists, because it's completely un-obvious that it's going to re-mark your playthrough's as a replay.

Oi! Are there any plans to implement ranking games in custom tabs?

When we have a Backlog, there is a priority order of the games we want to play first. At the moment, there is no way to rank the Backlog (or any other tab). As a workaround, I am using a custom tab for the Backlog games that have priority, but it would still be nice to be able to order them.

The idea would be to be able to rank the games in the custom tabs, just like it is done with collections.

Thanks!

I was also thinking about this recently and it isn't the first time I've thought about a feature like that over the years. For now, I'm just using a note-taking app to create a "priority order" list.

Oi! Are there any plans to implement ranking games in custom tabs?

When we have a Backlog, there is a priority order of the games we want to play first. At the moment, there is no way to rank the Backlog (or any other tab). As a workaround, I am using a custom tab for the Backlog games that have priority, but it would still be nice to be able to order them.

The idea would be to be able to rank the games in the custom tabs, just like it is done with collections.

Thanks!

I made a collection for my backlog priority list that I called upcoming games.

I was also thinking about this recently and it isn't the first time I've thought about a feature like that over the years. For now, I'm just using a note-taking app to create a "priority order" list.

It's essential. I hope it gets implemented. It's a good idea to use an external editor to get around this kind of thing, but I'm trying to keep everything centralized here.

I made a collection for my backlog priority list that I called upcoming games.

This is a good idea too!
I thought about doing the same, but I preferred to keep the games in the Backlog tab and the priority games in the Custom tab, that way I can list both using the Multi-List feature and I don't need to add the games to the Collection backlog every time I add a game to the Backlog tab. And also, this way we can select the platforms when adding a game, which is not possible in collections. .

Hey, I just noticed that Sundered: Eldritch Edition should be a separate entry on the site. The Eldritch Edition is an expanded version of the game with extra content such as new areas to explore, which would affect playtimes. Currently, the Eldritch Edition is only marked as an Alias for the original game sundered. The two versions should be separated to make playtimes more accurate.

I agree with that. And there are older games like that too, like Tony Hawk's American Wasteland Collector's Edition which is listed as an alias of the original version but has exclusive levels, which makes the playtime different.

Such requests should go here so they don't get lost

In cases where there are versions with significant content changes (like the ones mentioned in my post and DuplexEagle's), is it okay to submit them with details and relevant links in the comments field to make Everdred's life easier, or is it better to just make the request through the link you posted?

In cases where there are versions with significant content changes (like the ones mentioned in my post and DuplexEagle's), is it okay to submit them with details and relevant links in the comments field to make Everdred's life easier, or is it better to just make the request through the link you posted?

I recommend making the request. There may be cases where the playdata needs to be split, and only Everdred can do it and it just feels like the better practice because he can clean up as he does it. If you just submit a new release and edit the original page its only half a job.

Note: AFAIK Everdred still does merges and splits in batches so don't expect an instant change or to be told when it has been done. It will be done at some point.

I recommend making the request. There may be cases where the playdata needs to be split, and only Everdred can do it and it just feels like the better practice because he can clean up as he does it. If you just submit a new release and edit the original page its only half a job.

Note: AFAIK Everdred still does merges and splits in batches so don't expect an instant change or to be told when it has been done. It will be done at some point.

Oh, I see, that's interesting. It actually makes more sense to make the request if just submitting and checking the data (like in edits) isn't enough. I'll do it that way then.
Thanks for the info.

Noticed that for Dissidia Final Fantasy NT there are no mentions of the original arcade version released in Japan. I submitted an edit to change the JP release to the arcade's release and added arcade as a platform, but should the arcade version be a separate entry or leave it as is? The alias for the arcade game is simply "Dissidia Final Fantasy" so it might be conflicting with the first game in the series.

The console and pc game we have now is an enhanced port of the arcade version released in 2015 which also had no story content from what I know. I don't think the arcade version is big enough to warrant a separate entry but wanted to check regardless.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game/52495

Remasters and rereleases shouldn't have discreet listings unless they are somehow significantly different from their original counterparts. However, 99% of the time a playthrough of a remaster is going to be identical to a playthrough of the original so there's no need for a remaster (or remaster collection) to have its own discreet entry when the original already has an entry and players can just log their playtimes there and refer to the original listing(s) for how long it will take to beat the game. As an example, there shouldn't be any reason for Resident Evil HD Remaster to have its own entry when the entry for Resident Evil Remake (Gamecube) already exists as a playthrough of the HD version is going to be identical to a playthrough of the Gamecube version (unless I'm missing something).

Oi! Are there any plans to implement ranking games in custom tabs?

When we have a Backlog, there is a priority order of the games we want to play first. At the moment, there is no way to rank the Backlog (or any other tab). As a workaround, I am using a custom tab for the Backlog games that have priority, but it would still be nice to be able to order them.

The idea would be to be able to rank the games in the custom tabs, just like it is done with collections.

Thanks!

This would be nice. Currently, I just have a collection pinned to my profile page called "Games to Play Next".

An unrelated suggestion from me: displaying the checked Tabs for a game submission on the "Currently Playing" section on your profile's homepage. I don't know if anyone else does this, but I have some "ground rules" for my currently playing lineup; like a "one at a time" limit for RPGs and MMOs, or playthroughs that are strictly co-op and are only played when my partner's schedule aligns. I also like to keep the "Retired" tab on games until I beat them, as a reminder that I dropped it at least once already. It would be really nice to be able to display labels for the games sitting in the Currently Playing list so that you can see any custom designations like this at a glance and separate your playing list by categories (obviously the "playing" and "completed" Tabs would be excluded for redundancy reasons). I don't think this would be super necessary for the "Recently Completed" section; just having the little icon to indicate a replay is enough in my opinion. This would also be a great use of Custom Tabs!

Here's a simple mock-up I made to better explain what I mean:

I heavily disagree with this and I roll my eyes when articles are exclude from the title. Especially since this only applies to English titles. To my knowledge, in no other language are people excluding the leading article in a title, which leads to a strange amalganation of some titles leading with the articles and some not. This also results in games like "A Bird Story" or "A Short Hike" being misnamed to "Bird Story" or "Short Hike," which isn't the actual title.

I get where you're coming from about language differences, but since this is an English site, it's reasonable to follow standard English sorting rules. Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting we rename games like A Short Hike to Short Hike — only that they be sorted under “S” instead of “A.” This is how libraries and media lists typically handle English titles. The full title would still be shown, just reordered for sorting — for example, Short Hike, A. The syntax for this is Title Proper, Article, like Legend of Zelda, The.

I understand that you disagree, but sorting rules are based on convention, and personal disagreement doesn’t change how they’re applied. These conventions exist to make the sorting process consistent and easier for everyone, regardless of personal preferences. Disagreeing with these sorting conventions is like disagreeing with how words are spelled or how grammar rules are applied — it doesn't change the fact that these rules are standard and widely accepted.

This adjustment would align the sorting method with standard practices and make it easier for users to find games alphabetically

Do you have examples of this being standard for games? It might make sense in a book about games, particularly in the index but it makes less sense in a games database if you ask me.

I think the expectation is that people sort their games by the title not by moving articles.

I also agree with Le_don, applying one rule to English titles we be inconsistent and be more confusing for the average non-native speaker.

That’s fair to ask. While this is most common in libraries and media databases, there are examples in gaming too. For instance, Steam and GOG sort games by ignoring articles like The or A. The Witcher is sorted under W, not T, on both platforms. It’s also how Wikipedia’s game lists work — The Legend of Zelda is listed under L.

As for consistency: since the site is in English and titles are mostly in English, applying English sorting rules helps both native and non-native speakers alike by aligning with broader expectations. Multilingual sorting is always a challenge, but defaulting to the rules of the site’s primary language is the most practical approach.

For non-English titles, I agree that sorting rules can differ, and that's something that would need to be addressed separately. But for an English-based site, following English sorting conventions makes the most sense for consistency and usability.

I get where you're coming from about language differences, but since this is an English site, it's reasonable to follow standard English sorting rules. Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting we rename games like A Short Hike to Short Hike — only that they be sorted under “S” instead of “A.” This is how libraries and media lists typically handle English titles. The full title would still be shown, just reordered for sorting — for example, Short Hike, A. The syntax for this is Title Proper, Article, like Legend of Zelda, The.

I understand that you disagree, but sorting rules are based on convention, and personal disagreement doesn’t change how they’re applied. These conventions exist to make the sorting process consistent and easier for everyone, regardless of personal preferences. Disagreeing with these sorting conventions is like disagreeing with how words are spelled or how grammar rules are applied — it doesn't change the fact that these rules are standard and widely accepted.

So first off, if you reorder a title, then you are in fact also renaming it. You are changing "A Short Hike" to "Short Hike, A," which is not the title.

But anyway, you are right that this is an English site, but it also has an international audience and therefore I question wether applying this specific sorting convention would actually be helpful, which seems to be a major part of your reasoning. Which leads me to this specific quote from your other post:

As for consistency: since the site is in English and titles are mostly in English, applying English sorting rules helps both native and non-native speakers alike by aligning with broader expectations.

Speaking as a non-native speaker - no, it does not! Applying this specific sorting rule is not helpful and does especially not align with expectations. This is the important part about language differences, as non-native speakers are not neccessary aware of this sorting convention and just end up being confused and might not even be able to find certain games.

I am speaking of experience. Because it is true that Steam also uses this and I have been through this. It's at least highly confusing, as they don't change the title, which means there is a T section in my W section (The Walking Dead seasons, The Wolf Among Us, The Witness), making the list harder to read. I also have a big ITunes music list with international entries and looking up some titles can be a guessing game, as some might be sorted with the article or not.

This is just my perspective as a non-native speaker, but I am also questioning wethere this is also the broader expectation for native speakers. For this I am going to point out that in the last six month you were the only person to request this feature (at least to my knowledge) and I wouldn't be surprised if literally no one else ever requested this. I could see an argument to be made if this were a recurring topic (like the handling of emulators or the implementation of starting dates), but it's simply not.

And while your disagreement with my disagreement is totally valid, your comparison with spelling and grammar rules is flawed. Because there is generally just one way to spell words and just one grammar rule in the English language. But on the other side there are multiple different sorting conventions (at least the two we are discussing right now) and none of them are mandatory. Ignoring articles when sorting titles is just one possible convention, but it is not an equally mandatory principle like the structure of a sentence.

In addition to that I did some research and I am going to quote from NISO, Guidelines for Alphabetical Arrangement of Letters and Sorting of Numerals and Other Symbols, 4.6 Headings Beginning with Articles:

An initial article in a heading should be treated as any other initial word. When it is deemed appropriate or desirable to arrange headings with initial articles by the word following the article (for example, in library catalogs where many title headings begin with an article) the headings may be structured to achieve the desired arrangement. Such structuring has two disadvantages: (a) it needs human intervention; and (b) the deletion of an article may distort the meaning of a heading, especially in titles

https://www.niso.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/tr03.pdf

Ignoring articles is not an universal rule.

So first off, if you reorder a title, then you are in fact also renaming it. You are changing "A Short Hike" to "Short Hike, A," which is not the title.

But anyway, you are right that this is an English site, but it also has an international audience and therefore I question wether applying this specific sorting convention would actually be helpful, which seems to be a major part of your reasoning. Which leads me to this specific quote from your other post:

As for consistency: since the site is in English and titles are mostly in English, applying English sorting rules helps both native and non-native speakers alike by aligning with broader expectations.

Speaking as a non-native speaker - no, it does not! Applying this specific sorting rule is not helpful and does especially not align with expectations. This is the important part about language differences, as non-native speakers are not neccessary aware of this sorting convention and just end up being confused and might not even be able to find certain games.

I am speaking of experience. Because it is true that Steam also uses this and I have been through this. It's at least highly confusing, as they don't change the title, which means there is a T section in my W section (The Walking Dead seasons, The Wolf Among Us, The Witness), making the list harder to read. I also have a big ITunes music list with international entries and looking up some titles can be a guessing game, as some might be sorted with the article or not.

This is just my perspective as a non-native speaker, but I am also questioning wethere this is also the broader expectation for native speakers. For this I am going to point out that in the last six month you were the only person to request this feature (at least to my knowledge) and I wouldn't be surprised if literally no one else ever requested this. I could see an argument to be made if this were a recurring topic (like the handling of emulators or the implementation of starting dates), but it's simply not.

And while your disagreement with my disagreement is totally valid, your comparison with spelling and grammar rules is flawed. Because there is generally just one way to spell words and just one grammar rule in the English language. But on the other side there are multiple different sorting conventions (at least the two we are discussing right now) and none of them are mandatory. Ignoring articles when sorting titles is just one possible convention, but it is not an equally mandatory principle like the structure of a sentence.

In addition to that I did some research and I am going to quote from NISO, Guidelines for Alphabetical Arrangement of Letters and Sorting of Numerals and Other Symbols, 4.6 Headings Beginning with Articles:

An initial article in a heading should be treated as any other initial word. When it is deemed appropriate or desirable to arrange headings with initial articles by the word following the article (for example, in library catalogs where many title headings begin with an article) the headings may be structured to achieve the desired arrangement. Such structuring has two disadvantages: (a) it needs human intervention; and (b) the deletion of an article may distort the meaning of a heading, especially in titles

https://www.niso.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/tr03.pdf

Ignoring articles is not an universal rule.

Speaking as a non-native speaker - no, it does not! Applying this specific sorting rule is not helpful and does especially not align with expectations. This is the important part about language differences, as non-native speakers are not neccessary aware of this sorting convention and just end up being confused and might not even be able to find certain games.

Speaking a a native English speaker, I also find ignoring "a" and "the" when sorting to be incredibly confusing. Just the other day I was looking at lists of movies on Wikipedia and I thought it was just in a random order. It took me a very long time to realize it was actually sorted alphabetically when ignoring "a" and "the".

An unrelated suggestion from me: displaying the checked Tabs for a game submission on the "Currently Playing" section on your profile's homepage. I don't know if anyone else does this, but I have some "ground rules" for my currently playing lineup; like a "one at a time" limit for RPGs and MMOs, or playthroughs that are strictly co-op and are only played when my partner's schedule aligns. I also like to keep the "Retired" tab on games until I beat them, as a reminder that I dropped it at least once already. It would be really nice to be able to display labels for the games sitting in the Currently Playing list so that you can see any custom designations like this at a glance and separate your playing list by categories (obviously the "playing" and "completed" Tabs would be excluded for redundancy reasons). I don't think this would be super necessary for the "Recently Completed" section; just having the little icon to indicate a replay is enough in my opinion. This would also be a great use of Custom Tabs!

Here's a simple mock-up I made to better explain what I mean:

Site Update:

User Profile
- Currently Playing "feed" will now show which list that game is part of.

Site Update:

User Profile
- Currently Playing "feed" will now show which list that game is part of.

Glad I could help improve the site!

This would be nice. Currently, I just have a collection pinned to my profile page called "Games to Play Next".

Hey, I forgot to reply to you xD.
I'm doing something similar but I'm using a custom tab instead of a collection. This tab is a much smaller list created from the backlog (which in this case is the list of all the games I intend to play). In this case I won't even need to order anything and can simply choose what to play on the fly since the idea is to keep this list small.

Is there a way to display the release year in collections and tabs? If not, that would be a nice addition.

Site Update:

User Profile
- Currently Playing "feed" will now show which list that game is part of.

Another thing I realized (and a quick tip for others): since games with other lists/tabs have a toggle button next to them, it serves as an easy way to separate them from non-tab games. Just toggle each game off of Playing and then back on again to bump them up to the top of the Currently Playing list!

It would be great if games added to a collection also appeared in the activity feed.
Optionally, it could also display the note or comment assigned to the game within the collection, if one exists.