Michelle's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Wednesday, November 1st, 2023 4:50 PM

IMDb Advanced Search Redesign

IMDb Advanced Search Redesign

 

We are excited to announce IMDb’s Advanced Search redesign! 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.

For more information about the redesign you can review our FAQ, and for more information on how to use the new Advanced Search feature you can find details on our Help Guide.

 

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

 

Image

7.9K Messages

 • 

170.2K Points

6 months ago

@Michelle 😀

Michelle, Employee
IMDb Advanced Search Redesign Beta
Opened Monday,     October    16th, 2023
Closed  Wednesday, November  1st, 2023 

.

7 Messages

 • 

124 Points

Is there a way to return to the title you were at when you go back after clicking on a title?  If there are 1000 results and I am at 876 and click it, when I go back it takes me back to 250 and I have to scroll down to 500 and then again to 750 and then find 876.  

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@lhanes​ I think the only solution for now is to open the page in a new tab.

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

6 months ago

O, here is the new thread.

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @ACT_1  & @jeorj_euler​ -

The previous announcement thread was primarily for the Beta, we typically post a new announcement thread for the official launch.

I hope this helps!

Champion

 • 

13.9K Messages

 • 

324.2K Points

@Michelle​ 

A lot of feedback in the other thread was not addressed or taken into account.

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @Peter_pbn​ -

The team reviews user feedback daily, and has iterated on functionality based on the feedback received. We have also included details on improvements in the launch FAQs. We appreciate all feedback and will continue to monitor it to ensure we are catching any bugs and identifying other future feature improvements opportunities. 

3 Messages

 • 

102 Points

6 months ago

Oh boy, you can't even see the directors and the cast listed next to the films in the search results anymore. So now if you want to see that info you have to click the little "i" icon next to the film title, which is very time consuming. And then there's the dreaded infinite scroll too. Big downgrade, as far as I'm concerned. 

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@alja_ciber​ and genre too.

3 Messages

 • 

102 Points

@plur62​ I was so taken aback by the "update" I didn't even notice that at first.

The search engine is totally unusable at the moment. Let's hope for some improvements in the near future. 

30 Messages

 • 

1.4K Points

Me too. That's my biggest problem. Imagine you search "French movies I've seen form the 70s" in order to check the main actors among 100 results. You can't, you have to click the {i} button one by one. We want the old display, the one still used in lists (or do we have to worry about them too?).

Since, my watch list is empty I thought of checking all the search results and then see them in watchlist but even the display in watchlist has changed! Is it possible for the user to make an automatic list of the results so he can really examine them?

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

6 months ago

Hi, I tried to reply in the search thread, but it is closed, or I would respond directly to the Col for his gracious response..

I cannot search for a movie quote any more.  I get a list of movies and their plot.  If I search for a movie that contains a quote with the word "beer" I get a movie that uses the word beer.  Not the quote and the movie, just the movie and a brief synopsis.  This is useless when it comes to searching for quotes since now I have to click the movie, find the quotes section on the page, click through, and do a ctrl+f to find "beer".

  

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Search now much less useful, still

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @wilderbyfar​ -

Thank you for your feedback. The team is evaluating options to improve the use case for matching and we will look to make this improvement in the future. We will also provide an update once this is complete.

38 Messages

 • 

946 Points

6 months ago

What exactly is the advantage of an infinite scroll opposed to pages of fifty results? At least on the user end it doesn't improve anything and just makes it more inconvenient. I do hope you consider changing at least this aspect of it; I could get used to the rest of the changes, but infinite scrolling has no benefits as far I can see.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

I surmise that it prevents unsophisticated Web crawlers from scanning the entire body of search results in a given search query that may have its corresponding URL mentioned somewhere on the world-wide Web, thus saving some of IMDb's bandwidth consumption or at least reducing the amount of siphoning of IMDb data for those who aren't adamant about that. The interesting thing is that most websites are adopting these approaches, so it might all just be indicative an aberration in the database engine software libraries that may just as well be being used by the numerous and various Web developers behind many contemporary websites who nearly all appeal to the lowest common denominator when it comes to trying to attract and retain visitors.

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

6 months ago

50 more ﹀ should be added at the top of the page (as well).

(edited)

510 Messages

 • 

9.2K Points

6 months ago

first the came for search

now they came for advanced search

Champion

 • 

13.9K Messages

 • 

324.2K Points

6 months ago

The predefined example "700,000" under number of votes includes a comma, but if you actually enter a comma it doesn't work.

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @Peter_pbn​ -

Thank you for your feedback. You are 100% correct and the team is working to update the example text.

77 Messages

 • 

2K Points

6 months ago

So in spite of the overwhelmingly negative feedback in regards to the new Advanced Search redesign, IMDb is going ahead and launching it anyway.

Why do we even bother offering feedback in the first place when it continues to be ignored anyway?

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

I think, the commissioners were only looking to see if the β stage experience would horribly bug out in an unexpected way, rather than having the developers be prepared to tackle what might be considered relatively minor limitations/quirks identified by us test subjects. That's typical of contemporary software development, I suppose. Think about it, for a moment, or look at the way gamers (video game connoisseurs) behave, how they are willing to pay big money to receive an incomplete video game so as to have a chance to play it before "normies" do.

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@Mitchel​ My opinion is that the quality of IMDb started to decline in 2017, when message boards and the "reference view option - old IMDb layout" (which many of us used even seven years after IMDb changed its layout in 2010), were discontinued. Since 2017, IMDb has been going downhill, every change, so-called "upgrade" of the site was getting worse and worse, and the staff regularly turned a deaf ear to all the comments of their loyal users. The site went from 9.5/10 to 5/10 in less than 7 years.

7.9K Messages

 • 

170.2K Points

@plur62​ 😀

??

reference view option - still here

Pulp Fiction (1994)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/reference/

https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general

Contributors [_x_]  Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)

.

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@ACT_1​ not the same reference view. 😉

This one:

(edited)

7.9K Messages

 • 

170.2K Points

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Plus, Name Reference View was removed, and now the closest we have to it is the "full credits" subpage which doesn't have thumbnails for samples items from the photos/videos galleries. I remember Title Combined View before Title Reference View was repurposed to be what Combined was.

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@ACT_1​ both were great and fast! 🙂

I prefer the first one though. 🙂

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Yeah, the new interface is very slow when trying to load a name page that has more than a hundred filmography items, and the "All topics" menu takes about three seconds to load, sometimes requiring the icon for it to be clicked more than once. It doesn't matter if no ad blockers or plugins are installed. It is slow.

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@jeorj_euler​ It's actually extremely slow, especially on slightly older devices, fine on a new mobile, but taking forever to load all the site elements on my laptop, the site is almost unusable. It seems that IMDb is set up exclusively for mobile phone users today.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

I've a relatively new smartphone (with OS Android 12), and browsing IMDb is slow even on that (with the latest version of Chrome). Alas, I've noticed that the mobile version of the Google Search website, although not slow, can become resource intensive when scrolling through search results that hot load during scrolling. For that reason, I kind of see this as a widespread problem, but definitely IMDb is among the slower when compared to websites based upon similar JavaScript functionality, maybe even being slower than Reddit and Fandom.

120 Messages

 • 

3.8K Points

@Mitchel​ Totally amen to everything you've said.

I've been one of the IMDb users and contributors who participated in forums here and complained on several of the recent so-called "updates" we did not ask for. And I've been one of the many who did not really like them due to more clicks, messy looks, information spread everywhere, endless scrolling, etc...

This advanced search redesign is almost no exception either. You just search for a single genre, company or whatever, and you're literally welcome to endless scrolling, and constantly clicking for 50 more titles, unless you fill in more searches at once so you don't have to "scroll and click to death", depending on what you exactly search for. And now you even have to click on that small circle with "I" for each title if you wanna see directors and stars per title. Seriously?

And what wiseguy decided to put in that giant popcorn bucket illustration that only takes unnecessary amount of place and screams for attention anyway? When all we wanted was simply to search for anything we want. More fancy stuff we didn't need.

When we (as with most other beta tests of previous "updates") had the choice between the new one when it was beta, and the previous version, I immediately chose the latter. So simple to use, and more user-friendly as supposed than what we have now.

Sorry, but I liked the previous version of the advanced search better... a lot better. So once again, I have to get used to yet a new "update". Thanks a lot... 😒

(edited)

245 Messages

 • 

5.6K Points

@chribren​ Maybe this is not the final version? 🤔

If it is, then there is no point in using it anymore, because it is useless and has many disadvantages.

(edited)

120 Messages

 • 

3.8K Points

@plur62​ Well, who knows if this is actually the final version or not. But anyway, I'll only be using it rarely if I really need to. Otherwise, as good as never.

(edited)

7 Messages

 • 

146 Points

6 months ago

This past year has felt like a downfall for IMDB. This "advanced search redesign" for webpage is terrible. I first encountered it while viewing the deaths in 2023. It is way too convoluted.  The old layout was much more simple. Anyone can see that the feedback for these re-designs has been mostly negative. Hopefully IMDB takes this into account in the near future.

10 Messages

 • 

280 Points

A huge drawback for me in this downgrade is that in the results page you can't even see the pictures of the results.  I use this almost exclusively to view the birthdays for the day.  This has made it nearly useless.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Hi, Slava. You'e not seeing posters when searching for titles? That doesn't sound like something that is supposed to happen. What is going on? Could you present here a screen shot?

10 Messages

 • 

280 Points

@jeorj_euler​  These pictures are tiny.  In the old version they were at least big enough to see who you were looking at.

10 Messages

 • 

280 Points

A few times the old version was back for a part of a day, but then this new joke would again rear its ugly head.  I have now given up clicking on the Born Today link on the home page, as it is now consistently only the garbage shown above.  The pictures on the home page are smaller than on the old Born Today page, and they are oval, which can cut off some things, but it's still a great deal better than what was done to the results page.  Now all I have to fear is the inevitable deconstruction of the Home Page.

1 Message

 • 

68 Points

6 months ago

I can't select West Germany and East Germany in Countries list

1 Message

 • 

78 Points

Czechoslovakia is also not on the list

Champion

 • 

13.9K Messages

 • 

324.2K Points

6 months ago

Excluding results by adding ! in the URL used to work for the Title Data/Name Data section, now "Page topics". It doesn't work now. For example, my answer to this question no longer works:

How do I exclude dead actors from search listings

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @Peter_pbn​ -

Just confirming that this is no longer supported as a URL parameter.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Okay, but there is no need to remove the "has" parameter. Will it be replaced with something superior?

Champion

 • 

13.9K Messages

 • 

324.2K Points

@jeorj_euler​ 

They didn't remove the "has" parameter, just the ability to exclude it.

Employee

 • 

6.8K Messages

 • 

172.5K Points

@Peter_pbn​ 

They didn't remove the "has" parameter, just the ability to exclude it.

I am going to talk to the search team about this as the requirements were that the new search had to be backwards compatible with the old one (minus a few impractical edge cases).  The exclusion of “has” is useful for locating data gaps and therefore encouraging data contribution. 

Employee

 • 

6.8K Messages

 • 

172.5K Points

@Peter_pbn We have confirmed that this was missed in the requirements and the team will take a look once we have completed the next phase of the launch. 

Employee

 • 

6.8K Messages

 • 

172.5K Points

7 Messages

 • 

124 Points

5 months ago

How do you change the number of results that return on a search from 50 to 250?

Champion

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

117.5K Points

@lhanes​ During the beta, I was able to add 

&count=250

to the url.

(I don't have access yet to the new ATS.)

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Sometimes it will be available in incognito sessions with renewed cookies.

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

5 months ago

i was just using advanced search, set to the old version, when i refresh and suddenly it switches to the redesign. i hate this redesign, is there any way to use the old version? i can't believe imdb would think this redesign is an improvement, advanced search was the best part of this website and this redesign ruins it.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled old advanced search

Employee

 • 

6.8K Messages

 • 

172.5K Points

8 Messages

 • 

130 Points

Sorry if I'm being incredibly thick here, but I clicked the above link which takes you to the FAQ page, but there appears to be no mention anywhere about using the old version Advanced Search.

Does this mean it simply does not exist anymore?

I too cannot work with the new design, and need the older version back to work with.

Am I missing something obvious here?

Employee

 • 

6.8K Messages

 • 

172.5K Points

@Freezageeza​ The old version of ATS was retired when this announcement was posted back at the start of November. While we do allow customers to switch back and forth between old and new versions during the beta testing period, but once the new software launched the old one is removed. 

The new ATS is designed to be backwards compatible with the old version (outside of the design) so we should be able to help if there's a search filter/sort which you have not been able to locate in the new version; there are also still a few pending bugs and enhancements in the queue to be released. 

(edited)

8 Messages

 • 

130 Points

Hi.

There's nothing wrong at all with the search filters from my point of view. It was just that I had several saved A to Z searches on different genres of movie on the old version. Page format made it very easy for me to save a particular search at a certain point (eg page 210 on Sci Fi movies), as the search would quite literally return thousands of results. Basically I used the search to find movies I may have missed out on, or not even heard of over the years, and an A to Z search seemed the logical way to find them.

The redesign has taken away the page format, and the constant scrolling to find the point I left off from is really frustrating.

I read somewhere that the page format is not coming back (although I'm not sure why). The way it's set out on the screen has been my only problem with it, but it's a big one from my point of view.

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly and clarifying the above.

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

5 months ago

Is there any possible way to access the old compact viewing option or a view that is more compact than currently available under the new advanced search? You can only view 5 movies at a time under the new compact view. Under the old compact view it was 14 at a time.

Employee

 • 

16.7K Messages

 • 

305.2K Points

Hi @dingbatterwarrior​ -

To clarify, there has been no change to initial result sets. Previously the page would load 50 at a time and the functionality has not changed with the new page.

Do you have an example you can share to demonstrate the limited views?  It's possible that you may have filters/refiners selected that would show fewer results.

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

Hi Michelle - here's a link to a search I created with a similar issue.  As I recall the old system gave the option (which I no longer see) of choosing 50, 100 or 250 results/page and would then give easy access to all pages of results.  On the link here if you want to see more than the first 50 results you have to scroll to the end of the page and click "50 more" and keep doing that for each additional 50 results.  That's a lot of scrolling and clicking to see all the results.  And I found that after opening a title page and then clicking the back button to return to the results, the system "forgot" all the previous "50 more" clicks I'd done and once again only showed the first 50.  Another user suggested I open a title in a new window or tab and that should work but it would be nice if the system could "remember" where I left off and take me back there instead of ground zero. He also showed me how to show more than 50 results by adding "&count=250" to the end of the url but with results in the thousands even having 250 on a page means a lot of scrolling and adding.  Thanks for looking into this - https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature,tv_series,short,tv_episode,tv_miniseries,tv_movie,tv_special,tv_short,video&user_rating=7,7&num_votes=527,

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

@Michelle I appreciate your response. In the old compact viewing option I was able to view much more titles on my screen without having to scroll compared to the new compact viewing option. I have attached the comparison.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.9K Points

Instead now it presents results items in manner like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, X/Twitter, TikTok et al. do.