nic_b's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

46 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

Tue, Dec 19, 2017 10:36 PM

Updates to Title Reference View

Please note: this message is about the Title Reference View, an advanced, opt-in setting, which is only used by a subset of select users.  If you don’t use this view, this announcement can be disregarded.

Today (December 19th 2017) we are announcing the release of an updated Title Reference View.  The new Title Reference View merges the previous “combined” and “reference” experiences into a single data-centric view containing full cast and crew credits.  While we realize there are some changes between the new and old versions, this new page still provides a condensed, data-centric representation of the title and is based on past surveys and contributor feedback.  As part of a larger initiative to modernize our software (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features), this page needed to be rebuilt.   The older page, while valuable, had major issues impacting its maintainability and overall speed.  The new page is now on modern, scalable software which can be improved and expanded over time.  For example, the new page is significantly faster, in both page load time and the data itself.  Title data is now rapidly published, allowing users the ability to find and update title information as soon as it is available (the old page was typically 2-3 days behind). 

While the new page is not exactly the same as the old, we still believe the new page properly represents the data itself.  If you notice an issue, please let us know.  We will be monitoring this thread to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible.

Here are some frequently asked questions:

What does the new page look like?
Here is screenshot.  To toggle between the standard title display and the reference page, please update your user preferences as detailed below.
 

How do I see the new Title Reference View?
On “Site Settings\Update general site preference”, at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general selecting this option will redirect you to the new page:




What happened to the Name Reference View?
As part of the larger project to modernize our software, we have decided to deprecate the Name Reference View.  While the differences between the primary title display and the title reference view are significant, the differences between the name displays were less extreme.

Why didn’t you include User Review detail on the new page?
We are actively working to add this information.  Check back soon.

Thanks
Nic

6 Messages

 • 

1.3K Points

4 y ago

What I came here to point out, however, is the genre descriptions. Now there are only room for two keywords in the genre description, and for science fiction movies none of these are "Sci-fi"! "Downsizing" is a clear sci-fi movie, but only listed as "Comedy, Drama". "The Last Jedi" is first and foremost fantasy or sci-fi, but listed as "Action, Adventure". Please tell me it will become possible again to sort movies by more nuanced/accurate genre descriptions in the near future?

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Update to User Reviews.

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

4 y ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New reference page.

What with that new reference view? Please give us back the previous old one. Let the first page contain the most important details like before, so you don't have to search for them amongst all other details most of us are not searching for! Before, we could chose for this page in the site preferences, now it's gone. Transportation Department? Hahaha. Who cares? But e.g. nationality, language, runtime? Scroll down completely to the end!!!? What an idea!

2 Messages

 • 

232 Points

4 y ago

Just a simple question and before you come to the same reply, over and over, because I haven't read you talk about it, can you answer to why, or what is the reason, or what is it really necessary in any way for to have the full cast and crew listed in the new reference view regardless you consider it as a data-centric page for contributors?

Or, in other terms, what do you consider now as a reference view?

I find very simple to answer. I just beg you to avoid coming with the same reply... again, because, yes, the reference view is for me (is for all of us here complaining); is for me because if I have to choose between a bloated standard page or a bloated unnecessary text reference view, I prefer the reference view, even though, now is useless compared to the previous.


At the same time, you are using loads of AJAX calls to save bandwidth. Great!, nice!, but, can't you even consider to load just a portion of the cast and if you decide to expand it, call it to the server to build the rest of the cast and crew?


And, a final side question, did you have, or did you consider to implement an API [to this supposed new and modern system] to let us build our own simple/un-bloated and useful pages? I'm not good at programming, but, hell, I consider to get into that task, at this point and build a local page to load what I want.


Also, already told, do the side panel less wide. If it is data-centric, make it data-centric, not panel-centric.

I feared the day you remove the reference view, but didn't expect this.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

what is it really necessary in any way for to have the full cast and crew listed in the new reference view regardless you consider it as a data-centric page for contributors?
Happy to answer ... reference view is a highly specialized view of IMDb title pages built only for (and in consultation with) IMDb's top data contributors.  The number of target users for this is in the low number of hundreds.  The aim is to make it easier for these contributors to easily view all of the existing data for a title on one page. This in turn makes it easier to work through the complete credit roll for the title in order to add or correct the data on IMDb.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

If other people want to use the view then they have to bear the above in mind,  and understand there will be limitations in what changes can be made to the view (beyond any bug fixes, of course).  For example, it opens with all credit sections open because this is the feedback we have received from the people for whom the page was built -- it makes it easier to search the existing data to confirm whether a specific credit is already listed when updating IMDb. 

If you are not a top IMDb contributor and you have issues with the page (beyond launch bugs) then by definition the option is not for you, sorry. 

I prefer the reference view, even though, now is useless compared to the previous.
See above, sorry. If you find the page is useless, please reset the option in your site settings.  In the 2010 redesign, our agreement was to keep the old 2007 page design available on the understanding we would not make any changes to it, and it would remain only while the systems powering it were still available.  Although it is (much) later than we planned, the second part of the agreement is no longer true due to https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0 

We appreciate that change is hard.  The vast majority of IMDb's hundreds of millions of customers have been using the regular title pages for over seven years, while you have only just been dropped into it this week, and it can take a while to adjust. If you (or anyone else) has specific feedback on the regular title pages, then please let us know and we will see what we can do to make improvements. 

Finally, although you will not necessarily have noticed this, by using the old interface over the previous seven years, you have always been looking at data which is 24-36 hours behind the rest of IMDb. A view with hundreds of unfixed bugs / issues which have caused the information not to be displayed properly. A view lacking in the latest features and content on IMDb, including: the popular Metacritic score & reviews; full list access; watching options; recommendations; image uploads; and related editorial features. 

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

I can't imagine there are any top contributors who appreciate the new reference view. As far as series pages go, it is definitely too much, so much that the page actually loads slowly if the series cast is massive. Col, you've also decided to change what the idea of "reference view" used to mean, basically taking "combined view" and renaming it. Are you seriously telling us that this was done because top contributors asked you to do this? Come on.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Are you seriously telling us that this was done because top contributors asked you to do this?
Yes, absolutely.  Per the arrangement mentioned above, the two old pages could only continue to exist while the old systems which served them continued to run.  The consistent feedback from contributors over the years since 2010 has been that they needed a view containing all credit data with as few additional features as possible.  We agree with this feedback from our own experiences of entering data directly from credit rolls (something I wish I had more time to do myself these days). 

Our original plan was to actually build the new title reference view on the http://contribute.imdb.com/  site itself when the old views were deprecated, but practical considerations proved too tricky given the tight end-of-year timelines on the technology migrations.  This is why the site settings at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general position the option like this:

2.4K Messages

 • 

81.2K Points

I fully support the current format of the /reference page, and I welcome the tweaks brought to the settings.

Nevertheless, stemming from the participation bulk to this thread, there is an obvious need for a format amounting to the previous /reference one. Could not IMDb take this into consideration?

And merry Christmas to all anyway :)

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

What a joke. A mainpage with the main details for everyone (like the old perfect one) and one click to the all detail page for contributors. 'People who like this...' (mostly incorrect) at the bottom or delete it, and instead of using only 1/3 of the width, make it wider => less scrolling. Everybody happy, problem solved.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

This new reference layout is the worst christmas present i've ever gotten.

2.4K Messages

 • 

81.2K Points

@Mark Engels: If you uncheck "Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)" in the settings, does not it match what you wish? (except for the 1/3 width on the right: I support the general claim to make it narrower!)

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

In my opinion most important is title, year, poster, rate, genre, short resume, director(s), all writers, composers(!), first billed cast, country(!), language()!, runtime(!), release date, ... This and some other's desires can all be visible at the top without scrolling. So handy. All the rest can easily go down or on the empty space on the side or on the full detailed reference view. Monitor screens are usually made horizontal, so why not using it and making a layout for vertical screen? Doesn't make any sense.

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

Eric Chatterjee, to put it bluntly, people who share your concerns do not matter. Sorry.

2 Messages

 • 

232 Points

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Thanks for your answer, Col.

 

I think all I could reply, has been already said, Col, but only a "couple" of notes.

One of the things I read a few times here, since you started changing the names pages, is that they had a delay. And I would say..., who cares about the delay?. What feedback did you get that people cared about X hours delay in a movie information? Maybe someone cares about development status that can’t live without knowing it? Really, it amazes me.

 

while you have only just been dropped into it this week, and it can take a while to adjust.

 Don’t you think we already gave a try to it and we didn't like it? But looks like we are a "minority" (among who?). What a shame.

You would say "among who?", among the feedback. And I'd say, "really, how I hate to not be a whiny user when things just work". I can't give feedback when things just work. Really, I can't. And even though I could have been giving feedback for the new page introduced 7 years ago, my sad experience is that giving feedback, when you are a minority means nothing.


But if feedback is what you want, feedback will you get.


A) Do you think that is "normal" that the standard page (at least in my display), from ~6000px page height, ~2300px (40% of the page) are wasted in:

  1. Jumanji promo
  2. title and movie poster
  3. videos and photos section
  4. recommendations who liked it... (I don't care what others like, really)
  5. and... recommendations for other imdb sections widget (below the contribution suggestion)

Please, remove unwanted sections. Would you do?. Sure not. You could move them to the panel section as links, or maybe with pics, why not.

B) But, wait. 1/3 of side panel? Please, make it about 100px width. Maybe that way we don't have to scroll twice of what we do now. Would you do it? No, probably not.


C) in the panel I don't need to see, what is in streaming, what is around the web, the users lists, the social media links or the users polls.


Long story sort, I only want a quick eye view of a film (or name, as it can be applied to them) details and more text based and less unneeded multimedia.



As a final note. This is just for a shake of a joke.

About the reference view. I did this yesterday after posting and I find funny to post.

You say that this was requested by contributors based on their feedback... All right.

Do you know that the whole reference page, in some cases (I think I tested with "The Walking dead series"), if you would have to send it in paper to them, is about 130 pages in A4 with a half inch margin (top,left,right,bottom) or 75 pages printed on both sides?

Do you imagine yourself sending such "books" to contributors to make edits and sending back to you when they only wanted to edit.... an AKA title, for example?

I know, I know, we are on internet, there is TCP compression, data is "free" (but if you don't ask mobile users) but, still, it is a waste of data transmission for minor edits.

Think about it, just think about it for a second. Poor postal service workers.


And I think that is all I will say here. You moved old users to make a choice between two crappy options, and, believe it or not, you win, I move to standard pages, even though I think is less intuitive and usable, but... who cares. Changes are hard and changes are good. Or some say that.

I will use the options my browser gives to set personal styles and rework the look.


Regards, and sorry for my english, it is not my native language.



I'd miss how clean it was:
https://wayback.archive.org/web/20070522174351/http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/

compared to how ..... it is now
http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/

4 y ago

Mobile site is broken if you are signed in and use reference view. For example;  https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/reference makes both Chrome and Firefox throw a cookie error. Works fine in IE 11.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks for the problem report. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.

278 Messages

 • 

8K Points

The error that I see is:

The page isn’t redirecting properly

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

Right. It's an infinite redirection loop. Very unfortunate.

2.1K Messages

 • 

67.3K Points

4 y ago

As I've already said: Thanks for this lay-out.
And I just noticed that clicking on the main poster leads to the photo index, so thanks for fixing that.

There are some issues (bugs?) regarding plots though:
-qv's are not shown, only in the Update section, suggesting they are not there while they actually are. Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779962/reference. Can this be fixed?
-Some plot outlines have the See More button, while others do not. This makes it very hard to see whether a plot outline or a plot summary is shown. Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/reference shows a plot outline and doesn't have the See More button. This title: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4995790/reference also shows a plot outline but DOES have the See More button, suggesting it's a plot summary while it is a plot outline. Could you make it so that the See More button is only shown for plot summaries, just like in the previous lay-out?


Happy holidays!!

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks (and well spotted).  We have opened a ticket for the appropriate team. 

4 Messages

 • 

882 Points

4 y ago

> if you do not like it, you are simply not in the target
> customer set by definition

Are you fully aware of what you're saying there?

Basically you're saying that your target customer set is limited to users who don't ever question or criticize anything you do.

I wonder what the purpose of using "getsatisfaction" is if you're flat out ignoring what the majority of users says? From the comments I've read here, at least 90% of the users hate the new reference view. But it seems you couldn't care less.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Basically you're saying that your target customer set is limited to users who don't ever question or criticize anything you do.
You must be joking here ... our top contributors are often our harshest critics because they use IMDb more than most people and notice if ever anything changes for the worse. 

From the comments I've read here, at least 90% of the users hate the new reference view. But it seems you couldn't care less.
We do care. We care about the title reference view experience for the people for whom it was designed. If title reference view was not designed for you then instead we care about your experience on the regular title page.  You are welcome to post ideas and suggestions for changes to that which can be viewed and voted upon by other customers. 

For a little bit of extra context, well over 99% of customers have been on the regular IMDb experience for the entire 7 years which the old reference view existed, and we have been adding features plus making changes for them.  A fair bit of the reactions here are a completely understandable reaction to sudden change -- change is hard. It has happened with every single redesign we have done since the first IMDb web site launched in 1993. The irony here is that when the 2007 redesign launched, it was greeted with the same "worst change ever" feedback featuring on this thread, yet somehow without any changes it became perfect between 2007 and 2010 (or perhaps just maybe people gave it a chance and started to see the advantages :-); same with the 2005 design to 2007; and so on back to 1993. 

4 Messages

 • 

882 Points

I've been using IMDb for as long as I remember, way longer than 2007. I've never had any complaints until 2010. At which point I simply switched to the "reference view" and I was happy again.

I think you're on the wrong track thinking that the "reference view" was only ever used by contributors. That's simply not the case! It was used by many users who preferred the pre-2010 IMDb layout over the current regular view. Now you're replacing our favorite view by a new "contributor view". I've no problem at all with you adding a new contributor view. But I do have a problem with you dropping support for all those users who much prefer the pre-2010 IMDb layout over the current regular layout.

If you say that 99% of the customers have been using the regular IMDb view for the past 7 years then I have no doubt that that's true. But that's probably because 99.9% of those 99% didn't even know a much better alternative had existed. I'd love to see a poll where all customers would have a choice to see the old reference view vs the current default view, and let them pick which they find more useful.

Posting ideas and suggestions for the current default view would be pretty short and simple: Make the basic layout the same as the old reference view, please.

1 Message

 • 

182 Points

Exactly.

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

Right!

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

Is this a website for IMDB-users or for contributors? Apparently for both, but it looks like IMDB sees contributors as the most important point here concerning the utility of the pages. How logic is that? And I was a regular contributor myself though. Most of the visitors are common users who in most case want a quick look on a movie. Without common users contributors have no sense. Want to contribute? Click a link. Simple and completely logic!

233 Messages

 • 

17.4K Points

If 99% of all IMDb customers use the default view, it is because 98.5% of them are not registered users, and have no other choice...

Coincidentally I do remember the 2007 change, and I'm sure I was one of those who complained back then too. However, that change, and all other before 2010, was nowhere near as dramatic or destructive to the access to useful movie data as the horrible 2010 change, and nothing that has been "added" since has improved it in any way or form. As such, the changes in 2007 and before were indeed more of a case of getting used to the new view, and most of those changes did indeed make data more easily accessible, with very little nonsensical junk filling up the screen. The 2010 change, and all changes since, is not at all comparable, because data is NOT more accessible, and things that before just took up a few lines of useful text can now take up an entire screen, flashed out with junk and too wide menus with too large fonts, and previous single line entries of information now taking up 2 or 3 lines without giving any more information. As such, most of us will NOT grow to like the "new" view; we've been complaining about it since 2010, and it will certainly not stop now that you removed the last shred of goodness there was to the site. I've seen the default view enough over the last 7 years to grow well used to it, too, but I do not like it one iota more now than I did when I first saw it. So please, give us, and everybody else, a GOOD new DEFAULT view, as well as a good "contributer" view.

98.99% of those 99% you're talking about don't complain one way or another, no matter how the page looks... But that doesn't necessarily mean they prefer the new look to the old. In fact, I think I've yet to actually read or hear a comment from someone who actually prefers the 2010 look over the 2007 look.

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

Calling out potential sophism on the part of the company is a plus, cartman_1337.

2.1K Messages

 • 

67.3K Points

4 y ago

I see the (attributes) in the cast section have been brought back (thanks!), but (archive footage) is now written as (archiveFootage). Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7632778/reference.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks, yes, this one is already on the bug list. 

2.1K Messages

 • 

67.3K Points

Okay, thanks for the swift response Col.

1 Message

 • 

234 Points

4 y ago

Can you please put the MPAA cert number on the reference page after the USA rating? Just like it shows on the regular page after you click Certifications (see Parents Guide example) and used to show on the combined page.


Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks for the problem report. We have opened a ticket with the appropriate team.

6 Messages

 • 

350 Points

4 y ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Reference view.

I can't access any of my imdb movie pages at all from my iPhone. I can access only the people pages. For movie pages, my iPhone says "too many redirects." What's that about, and how can I get back into the site?

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: I can't access my imdb pro on my mobile device.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Sorry about this. It is bug with the reference view when accessed on a mobile device. We have a ticket open to fix this (see above). In the meantime as a workaround, you can either disable the reference view option or use the IMDb mobile app on your phone.

4 Messages

 • 

190 Points

Any progress on this ticket?
Thanks

4 Messages

 • 

192 Points

4 y ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled The New Format has Ruined my Contribution Experience.

I mainly add/fix up the credits for television shows. Some need little work but others seem to be almost works of fiction with nearly 100 corrections. To keep track of what needs correcting I use a text editor. I used to copy the credits from the IMDB page and paste (with appropriate formatting) into a text editor. From the TV show’s credits, I make the corrections in the editor. When finished, I copy/paste and drag/drop back into the IMDB editing page. It’s simple and fairly quick.

However, the new page formatting has made this very difficult. It’s use of tables and the way they have been implemented has made it difficult to use in the text editor. The layout is difficult to put in a readable form that is easy to edit.

The new page format is fine for a small number of corrections but is difficult when there are many to be done due to the use of tables.

So far, I haven’t resorted to scripting to try and fix it but I have tried exporting from various browsers and importing in various applications. No luck so far without having to do a lot of extra editing/formatting on my part.

Question, how do other people do the editing of the credits, especially those that came up with the new format? If somebody has a better way of doing it I would be very interested.

John

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

When trying to use a "copy and paste" approach, The presence of a carriage return after the ellipsis is thanks to the HTML "div" tags around each character name. I don't see how the tag is necessary, since the character name has its own cell in the table.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the inconvenience.  We have some ideas on how we can better address this use case and a ticket is now open (it will be delayed behind more visible bug fixes though, sorry). 

49 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

4 y ago

The new reference view omits certification and distributor attributes.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) certification reads now 'Finland:K-7 Finland:K-16'. The original display was 'Finland:K-7 (2012) Finland:K-16 (1961)'.

Galaxina (1980) distributors: 'Nordic Video (1980) (Finland) (video)'. Video distribution took place some time in the 1980s. The letter S is missing.

Gone with the Wind (1939). 'Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (1950) (Finland) (theatrical)'. When Gone with the Wind was re-released in 1961 it was distributed by the very same company. That's why there were two years 'Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (1950) (1961) (Finland) (theatrical)'. Now 1961 is gone.

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

145.1K Points

Thanks, we have a ticket already open for certificates (see above) but the distributor issue is a new report -- we have opened a new ticket for it.  

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

4 y ago

I see only now that from now on normal members don't have access to info of movies in development any more. Like e.g. 'Race to the South Pole' (Casey Affleck(?), in development since 2013). Why is that? Ar we little children? :-/

2.4K Messages

 • 

81.2K Points

What do you mean by "normal members"? What do you mean "no access"?
If I can search and display http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413620/reference, am I "abnormal" ?

18 Messages

 • 

700 Points

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413620/?ref_=nv_sr_1
That's what I get when I type in the title. And that's what it says: Note: Because this project is categorized as in development, the data is only available on IMDbPro and is subject to change.
Sorry that my native language is not English. With normal members I obviously mean not Pro-members.

2.4K Messages

 • 

81.2K Points

The strange thing is that, when you search for Race to the South Pole, as a logged in (non Pro) member, you get that result. Whereas I would expect to access to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413620/reference which displays more information...
(Sorry granted, as I am a non English native as well!)

Champion

 • 

2.3K Messages

 • 

63.2K Points

4 y ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Reference view.

I've been using the IMDb on a desktop for 17 years and almost nothing has changed. Do you realize how unhelpful "suck ass" sounds? Can you articulate what has changed that you actually don't like?

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Reference view.

4 Messages

 • 

192 Points

4 y ago

I can’t speak for the writer you are replying to but I will give you my problems with the layout as it stands.


It has made the editing of the credits a MUCH longer task. Do you contribute to the IMDB pages? How do you add/correct 100+ credits for, say, a TV episode? For some of the older shows this is not unusual. Have a look at all the (uncredited) attributes for the first 3 seasons of Ugly Betty. Most of those needed to be corrected. To me, it seems some people are padding their CV by adding their names to shows. They might have worked on them but they should be marked as (uncredited). However, that’s another story.


To do this and keep track of the changes I use a text file - I have put how I do this earlier in this thread. The new layout formatting does not allow me to easily get a good, usable text file.


The actual layout is fine, and I like it. However, from a contributor’s point of view, it sucks. I want to be able to get a credit list, preferably in (category) alphabetical order as a text file. If you have a better way of doing it using the present layout then please let me know.

8.1K Messages

 • 

185K Points

4 y ago

I will look into creating a bookmarklet that reformats the display, making it more terse.