IMDb Name Page BETA OPT-IN

@Madeleine_Dougherty​ @raynor_pretorius @martin_695862 

I want to make another comment on this issue. I've read a lot of comments from major contributors saying the new site favors casual browsers at their expense. As a casual browser, I disagree.

I'm in 100% agreement of your disagreement. As a casual user, this entire experience of the site redesign, from the very beginning of its inception, has done nothing but infuriate me. It's only now that the redesign has reached a breaking point for me, forcing me to this forum to complain. I had no idea this forum even existed until now.

@ACT_1​ I find it amusing that you think this is Amazon asking its users permission to go ahead with the new redesign. It's not. It's a beta test to work out the kinks. The entire thing is going forward whether we like it or not.

@black_flag​ 

well, Nobody likes it !! 😆

.

@black_flag​ Yup. They could care less of what us actual users think.  I'll just find my info elsewhere!!!

@Coreena​ Always found that a curious Americanism... if someone "could care less", it means they must care.

@patty42​ 

Change the name to

The Internet Movie Poster Database  ??

.

@patty42​ Yes, you are correct. the CSS of the page's layout and appearance has nothing to do with how the backend functions. @Col_Needham is simply attempting to deflect the real reason for the frontend changes, which is to force you to be on the page longer, in service of USER ENGAGEMENT METRICS.

@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

.

@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. 

@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. 

@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. 

@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.

@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:

@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. 

@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.

@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.

@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). 

@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."

@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.

@gromit82​

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?

@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.

@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 :-(

@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.

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!)

@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!"

@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.

@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. 

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

@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?

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.

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.

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

@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.

@martin_695862​ 

? ?

Michelle, Employee
Tue, Jul 5, 2022
Top 300 Contributor Leaderboard for June 2022
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/top-300-contributor-leaderboard-for-june-2022/62c43e90e929921253c79d50

.

@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.

@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.