@Col_Needham​ Because when I need to look at how the credits looked before a mishap, batch of fakery, or illfated merge occured to do page repair, it seems the WBM is only good for dates pre-new design and want to find out if I can get round that from someone that better versed in WBM than I am.

I know how to view the full live credits okay. Thanks. :)

Hi, Col Needham, I find it a little odd you and Sally sort of missed the point of the Web-archiving process, but perhaps you've responded as a rhetorical device, for those few stragglers unaware of the "all topics" feature. I don't know. Anyway, I've always praised the fact that Wikipedia has public editing histories as one of the things about it that is clearly superior to IMDb. Most of the fans of IMDb around here, for whatever reason, don't seem to have a stake in that situation.

Have you seen what has been done to the "release info" subpath page of IMDb title pages? The IMDb developers are definitely following a trend of re-designing the website in such a way that anything that would constitute a comprehensive view of any information is obscured by either additional hyperlinks or JavaScript-based fetching. The motive may be to cut down on data transmission volumes, but I doubt it, seeing as how the sizes of script files, style sheet definition files and media files have not shrunken. So, the trend is seemingly on purpose, in order to make it harder for Web crawlers to cache more of the information found on the site.

@keyword_expert​ Indeed as you and @jeorj_euler write, with greater technical words than I can summon, there will be less scraping from these ropey mirror sites (that I can't imagine steal that much IMDb traffic but I respect the protection of data) but Wayback Machine, which is a valuable tool for contributors, looks to be caught in the crossfire.

In fact data is so well hidden now, I saw a name page that looked to have one credit on it total, when opened up to full credits it actually had 14 credits, WBM entries on this page wouldn't be much use.

I can only hope that the people operating WBM realise this and can program whatever system they use to archive IMDb pages to archive the full credit text pages. Until then I guess we'll have to preserve them ourselves when time/opportunity presents itself.

And I really hope IMDb put a 'All Credits' button at the top of the credit section on name pages rather than having to trigger a pop up (there's two different routes) to get at it, it just slows me down and is tedious to boot.

Also thank you for tackling that user trying to remove that review on the new most recent attempt, it had me very suspicious. It made me wonder if there was some hoohaa about it somewhere that we aren't aware of and someone is trying to destroy evidence. I did save that review writers page with both their reviews on WBM right away in case of 'mishap', so I'll link here in case it ever needs to be referenced

https://web.archive.org/web/20230113222151/https://www.imdb.com/user/ur1753302/

I don't believe I've ever submitted an IMDb user profile for archiving, which is something I would avoid, out of respect for privacy and vanity to a lesser extent, basically reserving it for members confirmed to be deceased. I can kind of see how it might be useful to do that to a troll account, but usually those are the kinds of things that people want to forget, except some cases cannot be forgotten, like that one spammer from a long time ago, "bring joy" of somewhere in the Korean peninsula.

@VonPunk​

If I am correct about my theories of IMDb's motivations, the fact that the full credits pages are not directly accessible via a single click from name pages is (sadly) kind of the point.

I really wish name pages operated as a single "master page" from which all other pages, like bios, full credits, etc. could be accessed via a single click. Instead the new design now forces us to click on one of two popup menus -- either the vaguely worded "All topics" menu, language that obscures that it even has anything to do with the person at hand, rather than something elsewhere on the IMDb site, or click on an obscure symbol that lacks any text and scroll down to find the "View all credits" option -- in order to get to the full credits.

But because most web crawlers operate based on html links, I have to assume that these pop-up menus are coded differently to defeat the way crawlers work and make it harder for them to compile their data.

That is one possible explanation why IMDb staff are resisting the community's requests to add a single clickable link on name pages to the full credits pages, because as you have pointed out, the current design is functionally awful in that it forces a bunch of unnecessary clicks in obscure pages to get the basic information that most of us are there to actually see. 

@jeorj_euler​ 

Have you seen what has been done to the "release info" subpath page of IMDb title pages?

I had not noticed that, but I will check it out. I did notice that just a few days ago, IMDb has now incorporated the plot summaries pages for titles into its new design. This is true for me at least, as of just a few days ago. I know that with other aspects of the new design IMDb unveiled the changes on a rolling basis for different users at different times, so I can't guarantee that everyone will now see the plot summaries as part of the new design.

@jeorj_euler​ 

The motive may be to cut down on data transmission volumes, but I doubt it, seeing as how the sizes of script files, style sheet definition files and media files have not shrunken. So, the trend is seemingly on purpose, in order to make it harder for Web crawlers to cache more of the information found on the site.

Okay, I have now checked out the "releaseinfo" pages (sample page here), and you are correct -- the "releaseinfo" pages have now also been incorporated into the new design. This must have happened the same day as the "plotsummary" pages (sample page here), which for me was about 48 to 72 hours ago. 

The result is that now, just like with name pages, users are forced to navigate title pages via a vaguely worded "All topics" popup menu, and everything is hidden behind multiple clicks rather than directly accessible via the main page and subpages for each title. The design and "All topics" labeling is even now the same between both the name pages and title pages. 

So far, the keyword pages (my favorite remaining feature on IMDb, after the "Locations Tree" and discussion forums were removed many years ago) have been spared, but the writing is on the wall: it's only a matter of time until the keyword pages have been swallowed up into the functionally awkward, visually hideous machine that is the new design.

I agree with you about IMDb's likely motivations -- they are making it harder for scrapers and crawlers to access the data on their site. But sadly this makes their site less usable for everybody.

@keyword_expert​  The new subpages were announced at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-web-title-subpages-redesign/63c04517011ca115ac43653c 

they are making it harder for scrapers and crawlers to access the data on their site. But sadly this makes their site less usable for everybody.

Sorry, but you are mistaken and nothing could be further from the truth on search engine crawlers -- the new pages are actually even more optimised for SEO than the old ones. Modern crawlers are capable of interacting our pages and following the links to subpages and other content.

The pages have also been designed (and extensively tested) to be easier to use for customers.  The points on scalability, consistency, speed, localization, device independence, and accessibility have been repeatedly made on the main name page announcement thread. 

The design and "All topics" labeling is even now the same between both the name pages and title pages. 

Indeed for consistency and ease-of-use which will only increase further as the remaining pages are moved to the new design and technology -- (the vast majority of) customers not on title reference view have been using this navigation for over a year now.  Once we can enable client-side rendering there will be even further speed and ease-of-use improvements. 

Hope this helps. 

@Col_Needham​ Really hoping WBM do find a way to automatically snapshot full credit pages, as currently they are not doing much of use and that is on their end right now to work around and hopefully as you say, nothing would stop them interacting site to site. Time will tell.

Also, please consider making my mock up in this image a real thing, it'd be a vast improvement to functionality and speed of use of the pages. Thanks as always.

@Col_Needham 

And please come up with a better name for the vague and generic "All topics" menu (and a better location for the link to that menu, rather than separating it from the other name-specific links such as "Biography" and "Trivia" with the vague and generic IMDbPro link/label). 

Ideally, instead of even having an "All topics" popup, the content of that popup should be incorporated into pull-down menus across the top of each name page. 

Col Needham, you wrote:

Sorry, but you are mistaken and nothing could be further from the truth on search engine crawlers -- the new pages are actually even more optimised for SEO than the old ones. Modern crawlers are capable of interacting our pages and following the links to subpages and other content.

Wow! Well, I'm pleased and thrilled to know that "modern" web crawlers have the good sense to trigger the loading of the "all topics" menu all on their own and visit all the hyperlinks found within. The Chromium engine sure has come a long way, hasn't it?

@Col_Needham​ Thanks for the explanation. Just like there is a reference view for titles, would it be possible to make the All Credits link (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428065/fullcredits ) the default for people who choose to use the reference view?

@keyword_expert​ Thanks for posting this in a thread where it can remain seen and be called on later if needed. Seems like these reviews may be well protected from deletion hopefully but it's good that it's highlighted so that the guard is truly up against this schemer. Your excellent speculation of possible motives is likely close to or right on the mark.

Also your explanation to Jeorj regards my motive to archiving the User page was spot on, only time I've made this unusual move, but it was out of respect for the users work.