Make Traktiversary give watchlist slots

Like many of you, I think the new limits on the watchlist for free users are garbage and the response from Trakt team was even worse. Even after an avalanche of negative feedback they seem to stand firm on their decision. Then I saw the following idea from mbirth in one of the threads:

Just an idea: instead of earning additional custom lists, let me earn watchlist slots. Maybe make a year worth 100 watchlist slots or so. Or 20 if you still want to be stingy.

I think this would be a good compromise between both points of view. It keeps the value of VIP for the alleged “power users”, given that they can unlock the 10.000 limit from the get go, and also rewards longtime free users for their dedication to the site. I don’t think this is perfect, but I do think its at least an improvement compared to the current model.

7 Likes

We did consider this, but ended up going with extra lists each year instead. The average watchlist is ~200 items for a VIP member.

And what is the average for a free user, if you don’t mind me asking?

5 Likes

Why not let the users themselve choose if they want more lists or more watchlist items?
That would help me at least, because i dont use and need lists, but i need a bigger watchlist.
Others use the lists more and dont need a bigger watchlist.

9 Likes

I’d like to know this too. My guess would be that the overall average is lower for free users. Not because a large list indicates a “power user”, but because users who don’t use their watchlists (e.g. those who don’t know how, don’t see the need, use alternatives, are inactive, etc) are less likely to be VIP members. All those unused lists will push the free tier average down.

And yet, the free tier also includes many users who simply can’t afford every streaming service or theatrical movie release. Having limited access to content means their watchlists are likely to fill up with currently unavailable items. Those free users may well have a higher average watchlist size than VIP users, regardless of how much they use Trakt. They’ll be among those most hurt by the recent changes, since they most need larger lists, but can least afford to pay for VIP.

Even for VIP members, a large watchlist doesn’t necessarily signal increased usage. If they’re paying for VIP, they presumably have access to all the content they want (why pay to watchlist a show if you can pay to watch the show instead?), so list size probably depends mostly on how much free time they have versus how much they want to watch. But unlike the fixed 100 item limit, time is relative :wink:

  • Completing a 100 item watchlist within a week is a lot
  • Completing a 100 item watchlist within a decade is not

Continuing the discussion from Freemium Experience: More Features for All:

Someone who only has time to watch a few things per year isn’t likely to be using Trakt daily. When they do use it, they’re more likely to add some new movie or show to their list than to check something off. Their watchlist will keep growing slowly over time, with its size being proportional to how long they’ve been using Trakt. With such limited use, they probably won’t be using any advanced features. This doesn’t match the “power user” concept as defined, and yet they’ll eventually reach 100 items and be forced towards VIP.

Conversely, a user with lots of free time will find it easier to keep their list small. As a true daily power user, they might be checking things off just as fast as they add them. The list may stay below 100 items, but those items will be changing constantly. They might also be more likely to use features like scrobbling, calendars, and various apps to keep up with the increased use. Doesn’t all this put more strain on Trakt’s systems than storing a few extra rows in a database? Why is this considered “casual” use?

I’d be curious to know the metrics, but I suspect daily usage correlates more with a high rate of watchlist modification than with a large watchlist size. If the aim is to set a “threshold from casual to power user” based purely on list usage, I would think the watchlist should be rate limited, or capped to a size proportional to years of membership (as suggested by @anon58120325 and @GHax1111), rather than capped to a static 100 items. :man_shrugging:

Personally, I appreciate the Traktiversary additional lists (I mainly use lists to work around certain Trakt limitations, such as tracking partially watched movies/series or where details are uncertain, and the new limits made a couple of my existing lists unusable), but the drastically limited lists are a problem for too many users. The 250-500 item limits proposed in 2022 were already worrying; 100 items is outright painful, especially for those of us already over the limit. It’s ruining the user experience for people who can’t/won’t upgrade to VIP under these circumstances, and is having a knock-on effect on others, both existing and potential users.

Sorry this turned into an essay. :sweat_smile:

TL;DR: The 100 item limits are hitting people who aren’t power users. Not good for Trakt or its users.

8 Likes

This is me! I rarely have time to actually watch stuff from my watchlist, but there are so many interesting movies and shows coming out. I’ve used Trakt merely for tracking what I’ve watched and what I want to watch in the future. My watchlist was at 190-something before I purged it after the limit kicked in.

6 Likes

Why are you using a metric from VIP users to determine a limitation for free users?

And why is the limitation half the average? Shouldn’t it be the average or a bit higher? 250 as the hard limit is much better if 200 is the number you’re looking at.

9 Likes

I think because the watchlist limit is already in effect so Justin is assuming that most non-vips would have cut it down to under 100 items so it would be skewed if he accounted for non-vips.

I’m just assuming. But it probably would be best to hear it from Justin himself.

I would much rather have an increased Watchlist than just adding more lists, sure in theory you can just make a “Watchlist 2”, “3”, and so on but that’s nowhere near as seamless as simply adding more slots to one list.

Regardless, I’ve been a member for 8 years so I have 13 total lists (Watchlist, Favorites, Collected, 2 free lists, and 8 additional anniversary lists) so really what’s the difference between 13 lists with 100 items each for 1300 items or simply allowing your watchlist to have 900 items (cause you wouldn’t be able to move the 100 from Faves/Collected or the two free lists, only the anniversary stuff). You can save the exact same amount so why force such an arbitrary limitation on where said items go?

In fact maybe you should just change it in general to an account wide item limit? You currently get 500 items as a new free account spread over Favorites, Watchlist, Collected, and the 2 lists. Just make it where the limit is simply “you can have 500 saved items” and it doesn’t matter where you save it, you can make 50 lists with 10 items each, 250 faves and 250 watchlist, all 500 as collected, etc. Let the users decide where they want to allocate it basically, the site just tracks every item saved and not per list how it’s allocated.

12 Likes

This is probably the best thought out idea anyone has had yet, and it at least makes sense with the current limits as is. Much more of a compromise than most of the others just saying “give us more for free just because.” I would easily get behind this idea

Absolutely. Great idea.

The question now lies in whether or not they will actually want to implement it, or is that not limiting enough for free users to actually have to pay…

1 Like

I literally just want to be able to keep track of my actual collection of films and TV shows, limiting the collection to 100 is just so silly.

I can now have extra lists because of how long I’ve been a user but my collection is still limited to 100. It makes no sense. Just let me use the extra list for what I want to use them for…my collection.

Now I have to split my collection between multiple lists when they could have just been in one like they used to be.

9 Likes