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

Responses

4 Messages

 • 

882 Points

3 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K 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.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.4K Points

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

2K Messages

 • 

64.1K Points

3 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K Points

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

2K Messages

 • 

64.1K Points

Okay, thanks for the swift response Col.

1 Message

 • 

234 Points

3 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K Points

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

6 Messages

 • 

350 Points

3 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K 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

3 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

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.4K 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K 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). 

44 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

3 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

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K 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

3 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

 • 

81.1K 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

 • 

81.1K 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

 • 

2K Messages

 • 

60.4K Points

3 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

3 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.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.4K Points

3 y ago

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