Michelle's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.4K Points

Monday, October 16th, 2023 8:34 PM

Closed

IMDb Advanced Search Redesign Beta

IMDb Advanced Search Redesign Beta

 

We are excited to announce IMDb’s Advanced Search redesign Beta!  Between October 17, 2023 and late October 2023, customers are now able to leverage all three sub-searches (Name, Title, Collaborations) on a single search page, making it easier to update search queries and navigate to desired results. The refreshed search is meant to enhance the IMDb experience for all customers worldwide, improving the discovery and navigation with easier access to celebrity, movie, and TV content on any device. The updated experience reflects feedback and suggestions from customers as well as in-depth research.

 

We hope you enjoy this latest improvement, and thank you for continuing to make IMDb the world's most trusted source for movie, TV, and entertainment content. 

- The IMDb team

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 months ago

I take a sneak peek of the upcoming new advanced title search and, for my shock, there is no more the "feature film" category, which was replaced by "movie", and now if I want to search for narrative feature films the results will also display documentaries, concert movies, stand-up comedy, etc.

This is terrible. EVERY attempt to "improve" IMDb is for worse. It´s really impressive.

Please, at least keep the FEATURE FILM option, where the results will show only feature narrative movies. And create a special category for documentaries etc. 
Thanks. And please try to keep in this site at least a shadow of what it was some ten years ago.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New Advanced Search: a terrible "improvement".

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

You can filter out documentaries and shorts under the Genre selections.

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Thanks. It is a little better, but still a little more work to do. "Improvement" suggests that things should be easier, and not the other way around. The fact is that IMDb was a perfect site that didn't require any changes. For instance, some years ago we could get results in perfect rating order, but since the last change movies with the same rating (7.0, for example) started to appear in popularity order. And they never fixed it. Never. 

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

8 months ago

I didn't find a direct link to this page on the Help for the new ATS:

https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/discover-watch/using-the-advanced-search-feature/GLUEUYWPQNPTEVPU?ref_=advsearch_help_opt_next#

Specific comment: I filled in a year only on Release dates (upper), and nothing about release date was added to the url. When I filled in a month, day and year, it did what I intended. On the "old" search, year alone was sufficient. And the way this interface behaved, it looked like year was going to suffice here too.

Overall I like what I see, especially the ability to change my search without going back to the search page. 

Probably won't be thrilled with the 50 item limit, and link to the next 50. I am a frequent user of the parameter &count=250. Good news: appending that to the url seems to work! Nicer if it were a clicked option.

I don't see the ability to enter a series title so that I can get sort/select episodes from a specific series. I can still append &series=tt... to the url, but it would be so much nicer to have a search box (ala Cast).

I see that companies are still a select few. Would be nice to have a search box (ala Cast) instead of appending &companies=co..., which still works.

Thanks.

Edited to add: Wish there was an occupation parameter in Name search. You have it as part of filmosearch, why not here?

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

I suppose, I will take care to make a copy of the last gen form.

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.4K Points

Hi @bderoes​ -

The direct link to FAQs/Help is available on sprinklr and we are additionally working to add the links to the top of Title, Name, and Collab search soon.

Concerning your comment: 'I filled in a year only on Release dates (upper), and nothing about release date was added to the url." - We appreciate your feedback and valuable insights here, the team will continue evaluating for future optimizations. 

(edited)

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

8 months ago

Here we go again 😐

Filtering titles by year is now extremely complicated (more unnecessary clicking), among other things...

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@plur62​ Can you provide more details on why it is now complicated? Which browser on which system do you normally use? 

The release date fields are now proper date fields, so depending on the browser, you can either type the date as before or use the calendar icon to navigate to a specific date (some browsers may only support the calendar navigation mode, for example, Safari on an iPad).  The release date fields are designed to be easier than the previous version and they should be localised outside of the English language too. 

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@Col_Needham​ Chrome Android and Chrome on laptop.

I can't find how to type the date as before, like this:

New layout only has calendar icons:

(edited)

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@plur62​ On a mobile browser so you should see something like this when you tap on the field:

which can be used to select the dates. On iOS you can scroll the year independently from the month and then in the calendar view you can tap on the specific date (or you can navigate month-by-month if a recent date). For example:

Is this not the same on Chome on your Android phone? 

Hope this helps. 

(edited)

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@plur62​ I missed your "Chrome on laptop" comment at the top, sorry.  What operating system is this with?  On Chrome for Windows I get: 

where you can type the date manually as before. 

Do you have any plugins or ad blockers installed which might be impacting the display? See https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/common-issues/why-is-imdb-displaying-differently-on-my-browser/GF2ZAR69V859XLHF

(edited)

9.4K Messages

 • 

157.1K Points

Likewise, I prefer the manual input date search over the calander view available on mobile. The manual input date search is both quicker and easier to navigate regardless of the device or OS, IMHO.

Best

Good

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

One of the concerns I brought up was not being able to navigate backwards to calendars from multiple decades ago with a single click or a few simple clicks.

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

8 months ago

Mine looks like this (Croatian language):

I can't filter that way, unfortunately. I guess that icon looks different in different languages, for some it's easy and for others harder to set the date. It should be like before, simple for everyone.

Alternative to this is to type "1987 feature movies imdb" on Google, but I'm not sure if it will work when the new layout is implemented.

I mostly visit IMDb from my mobile phone.

(edited)

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

We can't simply put the year anymore. We will always have to put the year, the day and the month (attending the wishes of a vast minority of very specific users who could simply put the date on the URL, and giving more trouble for 99% of the users). Like I said before: the advanced title search, as it is, is almost PERFECT. These changes will only give more trouble and difficulties to the user. Besides, from an aesthetic point of view, it is all simply UGLY. Could you just once, NOT change IMDb?

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@angelopilla47​ Truth. As if most users care which title was shown from March 12, 1963 to May 17 of the same year. But IMDb wouldn't be what it is if it didn't "fix" things that shouldn't be fixed. :)

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@plur62​ If you tap the “1987” in your example above, you should get a scrollable menu of years from which you can navigate to any date. 

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@Col_Needham​ from October 17th to January 1st, I have to click 10 times (9 months and then set to January 1st), and that's just to set one year. Sorry, but this is in no way an improvement of Advanced search page.

247 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@jeorj_euler​ yes (in my case).

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

8 months ago

First comment: I am not sure if this is a bug or I may be miss understanding the the purpose of this function, but the very last option, under the section “Your Lists” is not working as I expected it to.

Ideally, most search functions include the ability to EXCLUDE as well as INCLUDE parameters. IMDB doesn’t have that availability, so I created a list titled “filter daytime” and add shows to that list that I don’t care about at all, such as daytime talk shows. When I select this list in the “exclude” field, I assumed that the search results would omit anything that is on the list., but when I tested it out, it did not work. I was still seeing the individual tv episodes for a show on that list, in the search results.

  

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

It is a complete mess. In the "improved" version we have to open every item to see the options. In the "old" version it is clear, every option is exposed. It is EASY to find what we want. We don't have to assume nothing. We don't have to be spend FIVE minutes trying to generate a list of movies. The "improved" version demands more of the user, including, mainly, more patience. 

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 months ago

And this bar with the all the Xs. Very pleasing to the eye, isn't it?

1 Message

 • 

64 Points

Not sure if its eye pleasing, but saves me the time of going back and forth to the search filter and results page!

44 Messages

 • 

1K Points

8 months ago

I know this complaint will fall on deaf ears, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely hate the new "advanced search" feature that I previewed today. The page is crowded with distracting features and the UI is unintuitive and harder to work with. Presumably this feature is being done to make the desktop site more like the mobile app, which has been the M.O. for every site change the past few years. I don't want the desktop site to function like the mobile app! Those are two different things and they should function differently.

Like I said, I know this isn't going to change anything, but I do think it would be nice if you guys would give us the option to use the current version if we'd prefer it. There's no need to fix what isn't broken.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New Advanced Search

82 Messages

 • 

3K Points

8 months ago

I'm not sure about this new look yet...

However, there is one point I would like to address. When clicking on a company name with the new advanced search activated, the results page does not display the company name. Instead the specific ID of the company is shown (e.g. co0007143 instead of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)). Please change that so the name (including country code) is shown.

Also, why does the advanced search page lets you select only some large US production companies? Why not have a search field like with actors?

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.4K Points

Hi @Elwood_Blues​ -

To clarify,  if a company page number is used, the chip will show that number. Instead, you will need to use the company name text. 

9.4K Messages

 • 

157.1K Points

8 months ago

I opt in for the advanced search beta test. I normally use the duck duck go mobile browser on an amazon andriod device. I feel good out this reworking or update for the most part and prefer the update for the most part. I don't see any glaring issses, the few dropped features seem not that important. I think getting accustomed to the new layout and how to access the same info now is the biggest thing, which is true of any major change.

The minor downsides for me seem to being able to view more titles at once on the old version, which is traded off for better readability and a cleaner presentation on the new version. It seems almost all the details and features were kept, but how some of them are accessed has changed, which is fine once I get accustomed to it. It seems some information is now layered and may require a extra step or clicking an icon to access it, which is fine (Metascore, actors, etc.). Plus, some some search parameters were retitled or renamed to be clearer or to be accurate to the three consolidated title, name and collaboration searches. I like the addition of a third view mode option in a title search. The few dropped search criteria like film location were likely little used and won't be missed.

I found the greyscale recommended parameters settings to be initially confusing. But, once I realized if they were not changed, the search would ignore them, I had less an issue with them, as they were not default settings. I think if the space in the box were left blank it would be better and less confusing.

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 months ago

The main problem, for me is: I'm a heavy desktop user. And these new "improvements" simply don't work well on desktop. They are designed for smartphones. And the two platforms work in completely different ways. The old version of the advanced title search work perfectly on desktop. And the new version is absolutely flawed, difficult, unintuitive, ugly, and requires a lot more from the user. Please don't go ahead with this, or at least leave us the choice of keeping the old version.

By the way, in my Google Chrome every search that I made on the new ATS generates FOUR new itens in the Historic list. I don't know whose fault it is, but it is annoying. 

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Even though it is designed for the smartphone, it doesn't much manifest as an improvement for the smartphone. Seems like the only decent thing about it is being able to modify the search query or change the type of the query within the same Web form.

120 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 months ago

To make this new ATS less difficult I tried to use my Google Chrome historic list, when I want to generate lists that I had generated already. But is no use, because every time I have to exclude shorts and documentaries again. People usually look for narrative films. Why now we have to EXCLUDE documentaries? It were a lot more easier to INCLUDE documentaries, if that was the user was looking for. It is the same case with the necessity to fullfil a complete release date, instead of only the year, like the VAST MAJORITY of users certainly prefer.  This new version of ATS benefits only a minority of the users, who is searching for very specific things. It looks like you don't have thinking people working on these "improvements". 

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.4K Points

Hi @angelopilla47​ -

Thank you for your feedback - we prioritized the exclusion functionality based on extensive user research but are continuing to look for ways to improve. We appreciate you being an IMDb user. 

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

8 months ago

I see that the search results URLs arrived at by queries unique to the new search form cannot be properly viewed by those who are not opted in the IMDb Advanced Search β at the time of viewing such URLs, e.g. having the Soundtracks search parameter. I should figure that this wouldn't be a problem once the project goes fully live, but yet I'm not so sure this could be considered ideal behavior even for the time being. We also aren't really provided the option to back opt in after having opted out. I kind of anticipated this, so I only test the thing and things like it in incognito tabs of the Web browser.

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Also, navigation forward and backward through the Web browser's tab's history doesn't always work out correctly, and sometimes the search results page redirect to a blank search form.

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.4K Points

Hi @jeorj_euler​ -

Thank you for this feedback - we are continuously working to improve accessibility and have provided your feedback to the team.

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.7K Points

8 months ago

"Search country of origin only" isn't very clear if no definition of "country of origin" is available. "Primary country" may be better if the meaning is that only the first listed country for a title is considered. "Primary" is also the description used in the 'X' boxes in the results.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.7K Points

8 months ago

Wouldn't it be good to clarify that for example selecting multiple genres only shows titles with all those genres (AND operator)?

Title types use OR while genres use AND, but they look exactly the same on the page.

5 Messages

 • 

152 Points

Languages are "ands" too.  I think "or" would be more useful for both.  

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.7K Points

8 months ago

Under "Your Lists", "include" really means "only include" or "restrict to". It is contradictory to use "include" that way when under "Adult titles/names" immediately above it is used in the usual sense, that those entries are part of the results.