Michelle's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

14.1K Messages

 • 

278.1K Points

Fri, Jul 22, 2022 8:34 PM

IMDb Name Page BETA OPT-IN

IMDb Name Page BETA OPT-IN

English | Français | Deutsch | हिन्दी | Italiano | Português | Español

 

Before launching IMDb’s redesigned Name Pages (coming soon!), we want to provide our valued users with a sneak peak, and extend an opportunity to provide feedback between July 22, 2002 and early August 2022.

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

Thanks as always for all of your feedback – please feel free to post your questions or comments to this thread.

— The IMDb Website Team

1 Message

 • 

64 Points

Il y a 25 d

Agree with a lot of these posts.  I use IMDB to look up information, not as a content delivery service very often.  

My biggest issue is the lack of the "details" type listing of movies a la windows explorer. 

On person look up page, need the FULL list of what they were in, in a list format, not an icon/thumbnail format.  Need to scan quickly like the old pages. 

To me the new version is nearly useless for this type of information research.  Yes its prettier, and more fun, but also less of a utility. 

IMDB used to be a pure place of unadulterated information.  Who was in what, What was the date that movie was made, give me some trivia, etc. 

This new version goes down the wrong path.  I'm even fine if you have the old way still up, and make it optional, but forcing people into this new way will be a bad move.

The APP did the same thing, but at least on the phone, clicking SEE ALL at top right gave you the whole list.  Would still like to have it more compact results.

Thanks,

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.2K Points

Il y a 25 d

I detest this new design for name pages. It reminds me of the new design for title pages, which I fortunately rarely see, since I have "reference view" enabled by default.

If this new design for name pages becomes permanent, then please keep a permanent option to opt out of the new design, much like "reference view" for titles.

6K Messages

 • 

151.6K Points

@keyword_expert​ 😀

? ?

On title pages
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/reference/ (describes IMDb pages)

Name links have a ref number
This counts how many times someone clicks on the Name ??
to see the Filmography

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000142/?ref_=tt_rv_t1

This count will most likely go down hill starting next month

😟

- - -

See:

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62db1035c998636027ac8d0b&replyId=62db1d6927c9e55d81c5eecc

.

(edited)

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@keyword_expert​  Thanks for the feedback.  It is not going to be possible to provide a permanent opt-out to view the old pages, however, we are looking at an option to adapt the name pages to be more similar in terms of presentation of the credits (and actually with some improvements).  Please see https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62e0407ac998636027adbcb8&replyId=62e2e0f327c9e55d81c71c01 for details. 

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.2K Points

@Col_Needham​ Okay. I will keep an open mind.

I will say that if the "reference view" for titles were to ever go away, I would very likely stop contributing on IMDb altogether. I do not have the patience, and my computer system does not have the bandwidth, to deal with all the extraneous pictures, advertisements, and widgets that now appear on the default title pages. It would be an irreconcilable tragedy to lose the reference view for titles. 

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@keyword_expert​  No need to worry about title reference view going away. It will need to move onto the new site technology eventually, but the core data-centric all-in-one view it provides will be re-implemented. 

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

Il y a 25 d

The new color schema and font selections are superb. Likewise the new flow of content on the right side of the frame.

The side-by-side columnar view for titles/credits is not great. Adding title-specific graphics is already sacrificing the compact list view, which is/was incredibly useful for at-a-glance reference work. The additional column causes more title truncation, making the loss even more egregious vis-a-vis my carpal tunnel vs number of clicks to get to a full title.

The drill down popup view for character/episode info is unnecessarily cumbersome compared to the old view's short list with "view all N episodes".

The "show N more" is also not great, the failure to maintain the state of an expanded "show more" list between page forward/back transitions is more not greater, and the failure to provide a sticky preference to "show all" is not greatest (though I see that one's already gotten attention).

In its current form, the new people page format makes me hope that the old view will be preserved for users with the "show reference view" profile setting. I don't really get what benefit these changes are intended to provide to me as a user.

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

@darthtoddler​ As some others have said, it's not for your benefit. The longer you are forced to stay on a page the more appealing it is to advertisers.

6K Messages

 • 

151.6K Points

Il y a 25 d

@Michelle 😀

  

You have Name pages in English | Français | Deutsch | हिन्दी | Italiano | Português | Español ??

Why not keep this Old (Helpful) Version (in English) ??

You need a bigger computer for this ??

Maybe buy one at Amazon ??

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=computer

.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

6.1K Messages

 • 

260.1K Points

Il y a 25 d

Col: Not only is "30 more" too small -- I would agree with Martin that any finite number is too small -- but there are some people for whom it's impossible to view their entire filmography at all in the new design. For example, Charles Eames:

In his IMDb filmography, he has 108 director credits, but I don't see a way in the new system to show more than 12 of them.
I wonder how many person-hours were devoted by IMDb's software engineers to making the name page display  worse, when they could have been spent on features that users and contributors actually wanted.

Champion

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

113K Points

@gromit82​ 

That's an amazing example.

Turns out that if you select the display to split out movies vs tv, etc, then you can access what appears to be all the credits.

But then, they aren't chronological within the Movie category, with the 12 special credits (the original 12, which also get boxes) appearing after the long list of non-boxed credits. Here's the transition point:

BTW, weird that this director has a 2020 credit as director when he died in 1978? Looks like it was filmed in 1958.

(edited)

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@gromit82​  Good catch on the bug, thanks. 

On the “30 more” and as noted earlier in the thread, this is a temporary experimental situation while we are still working on the pages.  We are aiming to strike the right balance between how many credits to load initially and when to have a “Show all” option to display the rest.  Thanks for confirming that 30 is too small. Related, a one-click “Show All” for all sections simultaneously is also on the list. 

Champion

 • 

6.1K Messages

 • 

260.1K Points

@bderoes​ 1958 seems like a more appropriate year for Herman Miller at the Brussels Worlds Fair; see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Charles_and_Ray_Eames/JJGeC8kqrEUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Herman+Miller+at+the+Brussels+World%27s+Fair%22+eames&pg=PA391&printsec=frontcover where it is listed under 1958. I've seen a number of Eames films but not that one, and I don't have other info about its release.

Champion

 • 

6.1K Messages

 • 

260.1K Points

@Col_Needham​ I understand that the "30 more" is a temporary thing, but more important, I think, is the fact that hardly anybody here seems to like the new design much overall.

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@bderoes​ Thanks, yes, this is also on the known bug list (again, glad you spotted it).  If a title does not have an exact release date and instead just has a year-in-title, it is incorrectly sorted to the top of the filmography when split by title type.  The software is confusing such titles for being in-production (see Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Movie” list when sorted by title type). 

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@gromit82​ 10000 likes for your observation. Full agreement.

"I wonder how many person-hours were devoted by IMDb's software engineers to making the name page display  worse, when they could have been spent on features that users and contributors actually wanted."

Champion

 • 

6.1K Messages

 • 

260.1K Points

@Col_Needham​ With regard to Herman Miller at the Brussels Worlds Fair, the problem appears to be with the underlying data, not a bug in the software. The only release date IMDb has listed for this film now is a UK television premiere on 29 April 2020. I've just submitted a 1958 release date for the film.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

@gromit82

"I wonder how many person-hours were devoted by IMDb's software engineers to making the name page display  worse, when they could have been spent on features that users and contributors actually wanted."

This is the really annoying thing. There are improvements that the designers could have been making, such as reinstating the ability to search for a TV episode by its exact name (eg "Casualty" (1986) {No Good Deed (#36.43)}) which was lost in a so-called improvement years ago.

But instead they waste their time working on something that nobody seems to want, judging by the overwhelming "please don't do it" comments in this thread.

The designers now face a choice: do they try to tweak the new design to make it more acceptible to the users. Or do they take the much braver decision to abandon the user-facing changes totally. I'd really respect them if they were courageous enough to do the latter.

I stress that I am not criticising the need to reform the back-end scripts and page design to make maintenance easier and to make the pages display better on "toy" computers such as phones and tablets. Those much-needed changes can be made without needing to completely redesign the appearance and content of the pages - adding pointless graphics, displaying only a few credits with "more" buttons, adding trailers for other parts of the site.

When something works for users, leave it alone and don't meddle with it.

As dgenda says, "You are basicaly reducing serious referal site for movie lovers into childish picture book."

Col, you've drawn the short straw of fielding all the comments about the new page design. I hope you realise that our comments are not aimed at you personally - you are only the messenger. But what action will you be recommending to your colleagues as a result of the overwhelming negative feedback? Do you really approve of the way that the site which you founded is mutating into a "a childish picture book"?

Is this consultation exercise for real, or has the irrevocable decision to dumb-down IMDB already  been taken? Is there any point in us making comments if they will all be overruled?

(edited)

21 Messages

 • 

486 Points

@martin_695862​ If they go ahead and destroy the site we love, it's simple, we'll leave. I know I surely will. They clearly don't care a bit for us.

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@martin_695862​  I So agree with and side with you, in support of Col, with your comment "Do you really approve of the way that the site which you founded is mutating into a "a childish picture book"?  Personally I choose to believe that he does not approve - I could be wrong.

Every day over the past 45 years, I have seen brilliant stuff start to go downhill, as soon as sole control is relinquished to a board of directors, either following sale of company, or stock exchange listing. When profits become the primary motive in any situation, what is right, ethical or even good common sense, very very often, simply falls by the side of the road :-(

(edited)

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@martin_695862​  Your question "Is this consultation exercise for real, or has the irrevocable decision to dumb-down IMDB already  been taken?" If I read (or read between the lines) I get the feeling that the decision to install the new page has already been done and the "consultation" process is eye blinding or simply to get easy feedback on code bugs. Again - I could be wrong.

See screen grabs.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

The die was cast in Col's early comment "Once the new name pages are completed and fully launched there will not be an option to display the old version as those pages are based on a non-responsive, non-localised technology which is 12+ years old and has significant issues and is due to be retired.  There is no “reference view” equivalent for names, sorry."

Am I being unduly sensitive or does anyone else think that sends a very clear message "You aren't the target audience. Your views don't count. Sod you!"

We've been solicited for comments far too late, when the project is nearing completion. They want us to suggest a few tweaks. That's like trying to polish a turd.

My feedback is very simple. Abandon the page-content/format aspects of this project. Go ahead with the behind-the-scenes improvements which no-one disputes are probably essential. But keep the existing page content: the compact graphics-free list of all data, without "Show all" or "More" buttons and without filtering, abbreviation and summarisation.

It takes guts for IMDB to admit that they have embarked on a project which is going to turn out to be a lemon. I wonder if they have the courage to admit that and to make a radical change back to something that is more similar to the present reference view for names. I bet they don't.

The onus is now on IMDB to show us (the contributors) that you do care and that you will take on board the depth of feeling that is being expressed in this thread, and will develop a modern equivalent of the perfectly good (from the user's point of view) reference-view.

SLAP! (the sound of the gauntlet being thrown down)

Over to you, Col and IMDB. Will you make the right decision? Or will you alienate all your contributors and thus lose them? The choice is yours. Our views clearly count for nothing any more. You've made that very clear from the official responses to postings in this thread.

I bet the points raised in this thread will not be discussed at a project-review meeting of IMDB developers. To react to them and to change direction would be to lose face.

Your choice, IMDB. Will you be the ones who kill a very useful reference tool.

(Yes, I am "utterly and abjectly pissed-off with this little lot" - and there's a gold kudos star for the first person who can tell me which 1970s British police series that is a quote from!)

(edited)

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@martin_695862​ Agreed, your comment is exactly how I feel as a 10 year half a million item contributor - cant imagine how the many millions contributors feel. "Am I being unduly sensitive or does anyone else think that sends a very clear message "You aren't the target audience. Your views don't count. Sod you!"

Champion

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

113K Points

@Col_Needham​ 

If it's helpful to have another example where the number of credits in the buttons don't match the count provided under the category heading, here's Samuel Fuller:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002087/

Almost every category has different counts, always higher on the buttons.

Checking against the "old" view of Name page, the button counts match all the "old" counts except one: Archive Footage is 18, while the button says 13 (and the under-category counts are 1+11.)

I hope you won't be shutting off the "old" view until all these bugs are fixed. Omitting data is a problem.

BTW, any plans to implement the "!" (not) functionality in the URL of Filmosearch? I was trying to verify his Writer credits, and wanted to exclude the TV series titles, but couldn't get it to work. 

Frankly, I've often wanted to omit the series credits.

For Fuller, here's the positive version of asking for tvSeries

https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch/?role=nm0002087&mode=simple&sort=release_date,asc&page=1&job_type=writer&title_type=tvSeries&ref_=filmo_ref_typ

I tried

&!title_type=tvSeries

which got the full list of all writer credits, and 

&title_type=!tvSeries

which got 0 results.

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@gromit82​ 

I understand that the "30 more" is a temporary thing, but more important, I think, is the fact that hardly anybody here seems to like the new design much overall.

There's an update on this at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62e0407ac998636027adbcb8&replyId=62e2e0f327c9e55d81c71c01 which may help. 

It is also worth bearing in mind that whenever testing a new design, the people who are most likely to comment are those who have problems with it, which is fine.   The purpose of this beta test is to gather those comments and to act on them wherever we can. Change is always hard and you may remember that all we received back in 2010 when the current name pages launched were complaints (and the same with every other redesign we have ever done, yet IMDb is growing and we are fortunate to remain popular with an ever-growing audience around the world after 30 years; somehow we are all clueless fools who have no idea what we are doing :-). 

Hope this helps. 

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

@Col_Needham​ "Change is always hard and you may remember that all we received back in 2010 when the current name pages launched were complaints (and the same with every other redesign we have ever done, yet IMDb is growing and we are fortunate to remain popular with an ever-growing audience around the world after 30 years; somehow we are all clueless fools who have no idea what we are doing :-)."

Yeah, we're a right load of old Luddites, aren't we? ;-)

I know I hate change for the worse. I remember my old grandpa had a saying "Progress is a vector quantity: it has direction as well as value. And often that direction is backwards."

I know you've said that the changes had been consumer-tested before coding even began, and scored highly. That is very different to the response that has been reported in this thread. It highlights the fact that not all users are the same. That's why it's good that you are now recommending a "son of name reference view" for those that want it. That's what I'd hoped all along would happen, and once I realised that "early August" was not the launch date of the new name pages, I knew it was a realistic prospect.

It will be interesting to see what new features appear in the name pages - both the design for normal people and the new reference view for dyed-in-the-wool Luddites. There will be changes that we have to get used to, and things will probably evolve for a while.

I'll be most interested to see mock-ups of the new reference view as they are being designed and specified, if that's possible. The more we see mock-ups, the more we can tweak the design and adjust things to our liking at an early stage.

5 Messages

 • 

194 Points

Il y a 25 d

Horrible. After few hours I killed that beta garbage.

You are basicaly reducing serious referal site for movie lovers into childish picture book. I even search am I logged as a kid (like on streaming platforms).

These are basic two problems and one improvement with many sub-issues:

- large icons grouped in two rows by 30 might be visually nice but it is killing visibility and effective browsing through person's career. And increase endless clicking 30 more on any larger list

- putting all (movie, tv, short, music videos...) together is another big mistake. It makes browsing even more difficulty. Good that you separated future projects from released (you should also create music video category, not keeping them under movies), but mixing all others categories together is a bad idea.

- add to my list button is only real improvement.

Here are some suggestions

- if you want to keep large icons do it as you do for titles cast. Put like 10 last projects as it is now on beta and add button "see full list" below these 10 icons. There you can list all projects old style. Something that "Full cast & crew" button do - leading you to traditional list. It will leave your visual improvement, old style full list will keep us movie-lovers and information seekers happy and finaly it will solve issues of too much clicking 30 more.

- keep existing categories (movie, tv, short...) separated. Furthermore add one more category: music video. They shouldn't be listed under full length movies

- not directly related with this: as I said it is good that we can now add names directly to our lists (like we can add titles). However would be nice to return function "list A-Z" to my lists with names. You can sort your list with titles by A-Z, but not names?! This is basic sort option to any database site. At any large name list it is difficult to prevent adding duplicates or browse names without that sorting option.

To conclude: every time IMDB makes improvements we loose something of functionality (sort by charachters, A-Z sorting for names...), just to have visuality. And this site is (or at least was) always more about getting information, than browsing picture book. 

(edited)

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

Il y a 25 d

Please please please no do not change to these new pages they're not easier to use and are not as easy on the eyes, I did write out a whole speech on this but then realised i had to sign up to write here and saved it but then went and saved the passwords etc to my clipboard so the "speech" is gone and it's half 2 in the morning so just PLEASE DON'T CHANGE IT!!!!

(edited)

21 Messages

 • 

486 Points

@8CH3​ I don't think they are listening to us.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

@pikrodafni​ I don't think so either. I think there is a hidden agenda for making these changes and Col is being disingenuous in blaming them on the need to reform the code to make it more maintainable and to make the pages display better on phones/tablets. I think we are being given the opportunity in this thread to let off steam about the new changes, when the decision to change the name pages (and probably the title pages) has already and irrevocably been taken.

I have several theories as to why the changes are being made:

- keeping people on the pages longer, laboriously wading their way through interminable "more" buttons, forces people to see the adverts for other sections of the site: a marketing/advertising decision

- presenting large lists of an actor's full filmography or a TV series's full lists of episode and cast makes it easier for people to copy (steal) chunks of IMDB's data to use on other sites

Am I right or am I right?

(edited)

21 Messages

 • 

486 Points

I think you are... absolutely, 100% right! Anyway, as I said, I for one will leave. If they don't respect our collective opinions and desiderata, I have nothing to do there. I can find info elsewhere.

I'll wait August to see what happens. Chances are by then they will be losing subscribers by thousands, even millions.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

As a contributor since the late 1990s, I deeply resent the fact that the data that I have submitted over the past 25 years is being so badly treated by the new page layout which will make it very difficult to search the database and is turning it into a toy.

I wonder if the hidden agenda is "if you want a professional, easy-to-use tool that doesn't have all the adverts and the pictures and is designed to look good on a phone/tablet, you must pay for the Pro version of the site." Sorry, IMDB, contributors don't have the money to spend on a subscription when we are doing the work for you. OK, top contributors get free membership on a yearly-renewal basis, but getting into that Top 100 elite group is getting harder and harder: I used to manage it comfortably each year but not any longer.

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@martin_695862​ 1000% agree. See my post re giving (paying) USD 45 000 free labour to IMDB - going Pro is not an option.

Champion

 • 

10.9K Messages

 • 

292.4K Points

@martin_695862​ 

top contributors get free membership on a yearly-renewal basis, but getting into that Top 100 elite group is getting harder and harder

It's top 300 now.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

@Peter_pbn​ Ah, since I didn't get an invitation, I must have slipped further down the league table than I thought :-)  There are some very prolific contributors out there. Deep respect to them.

6K Messages

 • 

151.6K Points

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

Il y a 24 d

Hey there, tried the beta, it's bad, for all the reasons listed above that you seem to be ignoring.

Really typical of modern web design.  Throw away functional, concise, and practical "classic" design for flashy carousel style Metro/Netflix style over substance design.

Also typical that the design will be going through without a care in the world for those actually using your feedback channels saying this over, and over, and over for 5 pages straight.

Adding an option to user accounts like "reference view" that retains the functionality and practicality of the original internet movie data base layout is a bare minimum here.  If you'd like a positive spin on that modicum of effort, think of how many account sign ups you'll force on your users that don't want to suffer this terrible new design!

edit: Consider that there are people like myself willing to sign up for a community account just to bring up this concern.  It's really, really, not great.

(edited)

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

Il y a 24 d

Thanks for looking to upgrade the site, but it would be great if you could continue to work on streamlining this before it becomes what we HAVE to use.

Especially when looking at TV titles, the amount of clicks it takes to uncover individual episode data for actors/writers/directors/everyone else is ridiculous! On the old version of the site, the episodes are all listed right there on the base page, and if there's more than 5 episodes involved, one simple click allows you to see them all in a list. It's so confusing to have to click multiple times on different links to find it.

Also, when it comes to people like writers, who sometimes get different credits on the same tv series, it seems impossible to differentiate which episodes they've been credited as (written by) for and which they've gotten (story by) for etc etc. It all just comes up under the heading of 'writer'. Again, in the old version, all this information was just listed right there on the main page.

Please make it better! Or if you can't, just leave it how it is :)

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

Il y a 24 d

I see some other people have mentioned this, but I just wanted to add some extra feedback about why having 2 titles side by side in the list is more difficult to scroll through. You have to concentrate a lot harder to process the information, as it's not all in one line of sight - so with the traditional format I only have to focus my eyes on one spot on the screen as I scroll, with having 2 titles side by side you now need to also move your eyes from left to right and back again as you scroll, which doesn't sound like much but makes it significantly harder and slower for the brain to process the information, especially now there is so much more information to process with the pictures as well.

I think having 2 titles side by side is fine in the 'preview' - but if you click 'view all' it should list them individually not in pairs.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

Il y a 24 d

I've got a great new revolutionary idea! If you want to see an actor's complete filmography, hit the Update button and then choose "Correct" for actor. That way you get to see a list of all credits, though not in date order, I'll grant you.

How sad that this will soon be the only (laborious) way for us to see the information that we want: all data on one page.

21 Messages

 • 

486 Points

@martin_695862​ I'll be moving on to Wikipedia. Bye, IMDb, it was a good 17 years for me. But nothing lasts forever, particularly the nice things.

Champion

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

113K Points

@martin_695862​ and others,

The All Topics button on the new Name page has all the Filmosearch options we're used to (except "by Job", which took you to the credits section of the main page.)

Filmosearch doesn't give the nice sublist of episodes under a series, but the episodes are still there.

Filmosearch has a Compact view, but it doesn't include character name and attributes.

6K Messages

 • 

151.6K Points

Il y a 24 d

@Michelle, Employee😃

@Col_Needham​, Employee 😀

Is there a way to get more Employees to read these comments ??

Perhaps they do not see the many new view complaints here

and just carry on with the unwanted updates

🙄

.

 

25 Messages

 • 

414 Points

Il y a 24 d

I don't know if in other languages, but in Portuguese the biographies of actors do not show the ones written by the fans, just a generic description of the person.

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

Il y a 24 d

@Michelle, Employee😃

@Col_Needham​, Employee 😀



@ACT_1 "Is there a way to get more Employees to read these comments ??

Perhaps they do not see the many new view complaints here

and just carry on with the unwanted updates"

I'd hate the developers to think that the work that they have been doing is accepted by all, and that everything in the garden is rosy. It is not. Far from it! Contributors passionately hate the new view and are threatening to stop contributing because the tools that they use (name reference view) will soon be withdrawn. That is (hopefully) a situation that IMDB will desperately want to avoid. Developers and project managers need to be made aware of the concerns.

The new format has some serious design issues which urgently need to be addressed. Sorry to break this news to you, but they are MAJOR user-requirements ones, not little tweaks to fix bugs. If you'd asked us our opinions and had produced mock-ups early enough to gauge user requirements, we might have been able to save you a lot of wasted effort. But you've only given us a few days' notice of what is now looking very much like a fait accompli.

To summarise the opinions of myself and other contributors, I think the mains ones are:

- Two-column list of titles - harder to read than the present one-column format

- Far too much use of "more" links to display the data in small chunks and (in the case of TV episodes) only for one TV series at a time. A "show all" link is needed (preferably as a sticky per-user config setting).

- Users want a listing which is similar in format and content to the present reference view: a list of every single credit that a user has, both for movie titles and for every episode of a TV series... all in one place. Yes, that may result in a very long page. So be it. We're adults. We can handle that. We don't need (or want) a dumbed-down, bite-size approach to presenting the data. We want lists that we can rely on to include everything.

- Space is wasted by large graphics of a "poster" for each title.

- The right-hand "More to explore" column is designed in such a way that if the browser window is narrowed so a movie player or a "reference-book" website can be displayed alongside an IMDB window, the "More to explore" wraps underneath the main filmography window. In the old layout, it was simply lost off the edge of the browser window which was no sad loss because it was irrelevant to anyone looking up a filmography. The implication of the wrapping is that the Update button gets "orphaned" somewhere in the middle of the page where you have to waste a lot of time scrolling up and down to find it, instead of being confident that it will be at (or close to) the bottom of the page.

- The "Known for" and "Previous projects" distinction is spurious, especially as some titles are listed in both categories. It means you have to scan two lists to find out which one the title is in. I no longer have any confidence that the list I see will contain entries which I know to be present.

- I'm not really a fan of dark-mode (white on black background), though I know it's the current fad. It's not the end of the world, but it would be nice to have a per-user config option.


The changes may suit some people but they don't suit all people. There needs to continue to be a display option that displays (for those who want it) a page format that displays all data at once, in a compact list format without excessive space-wasting graphics. You would not go far wrong if you modelled that page format on the present name reference view. And the choice between new format and something akin to the old format needs to continue indefinitely as a user-selectable option like the current Reference View tick-box.

We are told that the changes to page design are needed to allow back-end code to be changed to more modern code which is easier to maintain. Likewise, the construction of the name pages needs to be updated so it is portable across all devices (desktop/laptop PC, Android/Apple phone and tablet). But none of us can see why that very necessary change brings with it a radical change to the way that information is displayed. I would welcome a proper explanation from the project designers as to why back-end changes are forcing changes to the way that they user sees the data, especially when it chops the data into small bite-sized chunks with "more" links. Don't treat us like idiots: we know that changes to back-end code doesn't have to involve a complete re-design of the way that information is presented.


One-size-fits-all has no place in IMDB: the needs of contributors and of casual browsing users may be different and both need to be catered for - preferably in separate page layouts rather than something which tries (and fails) to please everyone simultaneously. And for goodness sake, abandon (in the reference view) all attempts to break the data into small chunks (no matter what size) with "more" links. That is the biggest problem of all in the new format.

This is a big issue. In fairness to your band of loyal contributors I think you need to postpone the decision to impose the new format on everyone (in early August, as I understand it) until you have had chance to take on board the comments and feedback that we are making. There is still time for IMDB to avoid getting egg on its face (making idiots of themselves) if it has the courage to listen to the contributors and other users of IMDB who know (maybe better than IMDB staff) what they want from the site.

(edited)

38 Messages

 • 

774 Points

@martin_695862​ 100% agreement. Personally IMDB can put as many thousand links and pictures on the page as they feel like - I won't be one to deny those that derive infinite joy from clicking pretty pictures and links all day long. However, as I contributor and person with not enough years left to waste time clicking useless links, I pretty much EXPECT a little respect for the contributors in ensuring that there be a contributor button that takes us to the old cast or crew member filmography page

6K Messages

 • 

151.6K Points

@martin_695862​ 😀

Is there a way to get more Employees to read these comments ??

You could add some more @Staffs here??

Wayback Machine:

daniel_francis_gardecki
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/users/5f495614c17a0660597f5a35

404 The page could not be found

Mon, Oct 18, 2021
Where are the IMDB staff on Sprinklr and on IMDB itself? 
Why do most staff members only give one sentence answers to long posts?

http://web.archive.org/web/20211019131612/https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/where-are-the-imdb-staff-on-sprinklr-and-on-imdb-itself-why-do-most-staff-members-only-give-one-sentence-answers-to-long-posts/616da0023a9f396d8e5c3dd8


need to change
http://web.archive.org/web/20211019131612mp_/https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/users/5f495633c17a0660597f9c03
to

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/users/5f495633c17a0660597f9c03

.

(edited)

469 Messages

 • 

11.7K Points

@raynor_pretorius

@Michelle 

@Col_Needham


Had I (and other users) been consulted early enough about the proposed changes to the name reference view pages, we'd have been able to marshall our comments for and against, to say "Oi! No! Just no!" to some things. And "Hey! I like the sound of that - tell us more" to others. And to say "Some of this sounds good. This bit needs tweaking like this. This isn't so good (because...) and this is how you could improve it".

This thread was started with an announcement of a beta preview of the forthcoming changes only a few days before they were due to be introduced in "early August". I'm sorry if some of my points have been made rather more forcefully and less tactfully and considerately than I would have liked - I prefer not to rubbish anyone's work and to be as constructive as possible - but I could see the deadline looming and no sign that comments were being taken seriously, so I had to grab people's attention in the hope that our comments would get back the developers and the project manager in the dying seconds before irrevocable changes were made.

The moral of the story, Col and Michelle (and anyone else from IMDB who is listening) is that you ignore your users (and especially your contributors) at your peril. We have a lot of experience. We know what we need to do our job: what makes it easier and (sadly) what will make it considerably harder.

Get us into the loop earlier and our comments will come as less of a shock and will be made early enough that you can still do something about them.

I'm enough of a cynic to think that we haven't been told the whole story about why these changes are being made. I'm also sure that Col and Michelle are caught between two stools, trying to keep both IMDB development team leaders and also the user/contributor base happy at the same time. They have my heartfelt sympathy if this is the case.

I think there's a hidden agenda about why the changes to the name pages are so radical: improvements to back-end page-generation scripts and to the way that pages are constructed don't require such drastic changes to the page content - eg two-column display, large graphics and (worst of all) the breaking up of a person's filmography into small bite-size chunks (no matter what size those chunks are). There's some other factor that we're not aware of. Maybe pressure and "politics" from Amazon. If so, at least tell us "There are other factors that Amazon won't allow us to share with you" - we'll moan and grumble a bit, but we'll know that resistance is futile. But if you ask us for comments and then don't appear to be taking them seriously (or go all silent on us), we feel disenfranchised.

We're on your side, IMDB - if you'll let us be.

15 Messages

 • 

304 Points

Bravo, Martin! I think all of us expressing concerns about the new Name design are indeed doing it "more in sorrow than in anger." We are devoted IMDb users and/or contributors who truly don't want to see the site's functionality degraded in service of trendy web designs.

15 Messages

 • 

304 Points

I don't have any other regular entertainment sites. I occasionally use Wikipedia, such as to search for TV episode names across multiple seasons since it isn't possible to view all the names on one page in IMDb. Since IMDb's News sections for movies/TV shows and actors became overrun with clickbait sites and irrelevant articles, I now use Google News to find articles about upcoming movies and shows. Those searches usually lead me to high-quality sites such as Variety and Entertainment Weekly.

I'm very surprised that "our testing showed that it was easier for people to identify titles from posters." I guess that might be true for people who follow every movie opening closely and know what each film's poster looks like, but for the rest of us, most posters are meaningless.

For example, here are the first three entries on Cillian Murphy's new page; one of them is completely unreadable and the text on another is so small that I had to squint to read it on a laptop computer. There's no way anyone could make it out on a mobile device.

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@patty42​  Thanks, that’s useful feedback on the episode lists for when they move to the new design and technology.  Your comments on news are interesting — until very recently NewsDesk had been closed to new partnership sign-ups almost since it launched in 2008, and instead we have been removing the types of publications you mentioned.  As one example, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0614165/news/ looks like a good selection of articles. 

I'm very surprised that "our testing showed that it was easier for people to identify titles from posters."

I should have used “with posters” rather than “from posters” there, sorry :-)

1 Message

 • 

66 Points

Il y a 24 d

As someone who works in television and uses the site regularly to maintain my credits so that future employers can easily look up my work history and to look up credits of others I may hire or work with, I find the new design incredibly unhelpful.

I want words, not pictures, and I want them to be easily grasped in one view with minimal clicking.  Now there's too much space, too many graphics, too much going on.  There is a reason why most people want resumes clean, simple, and on only one page; we get tired and irritated flipping around. We want everything at a glance and now that's gone. It would be more helpful to send someone to a LinkdIn page than this.

Now every page looks the same. Someone with 600 credits looks just as impressive as someone with 6. And no one has the time or patience to look at pop ups for a list of their episodes under a television title.

The graphics are fine under the "known for" section, but when it comes to the meat of someone's career, you really just want a list so you can really take in all that they've done.  It no longer looks user friendly and two columns seriously muddies the timeline.  People read lists either left to right or top to bottom, not a mix of the two.

Side Note for all versions of this site - How are the "Known For" credits chosen on either the old or new? There seems to literally be no metric for it. The titles under my name are old, random, and not in any way what I am "known for" working on.

Employee

 • 

5K Messages

 • 

152K Points

@renitajenkins​  Thanks for the feedback and for trying the beta.  The site is optimised for consumer customers, not professionals, sorry.   IMDbPro should provide better options for your needs, including control over your Known For credits (otherwise, this article describes their selection). 

There are some changes in the pipeline which address most of your other concerns — please see https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62e0407ac998636027adbcb8&replyId=62e2e0f327c9e55d81c71c01

For additional background on how we arrived at this design, please see https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62e591f927c9e55d81c798d9&replyId=62e6b0d71b2f176c00131e50 

Hope this helps.