![Employee Employee](https://sprcdn-assets.sprinklr.com/674/23bfd3d8-ba83-46a2-a1aa-651b2519a0fc-2072033153/employee2_p.png)
Employee
•
5.2K Messages
•
54.7K Points
IMDb Name Page Redesign
![IMDb Name Page Redesign IMDb Name Page Redesign](https://sprcdn-assets.sprinklr.com/674/c8373447-3cfd-4181-aef6-31e26f9a3414-731323186.jpg)
We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s redesigned Name pages! These pages are meant to make your IMDb experience easier and more enjoyable by providing better access to photos and videos, an upgraded view of an individual’s credits, and improved mobile navigation making it easier to view IMDb features on the go. These enhancements reflect changes suggested by IMDb customers, as well as our own in-depth research designed to enhance entertainment content, discovery, and navigation. More information is available in the FAQ on the help page.
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.
— The IMDb Team
English | Français | Deutsch | हिन्दी | Italiano | Português | Español
rwood10
1 Message
•
64 Points
2 years ago
Is there an option to view the original format? Thank you.
8
Warstream
8 Messages
•
266 Points
2 years ago
I DONT WANT THIS NEW IMDb Name Page Redesign
1
camarsh13
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
Yeah not a good change. Harder to navigate, you now have to click see all under a person's credits to view all of them even after opening that specific section (writer/director/producer), and when you do click see all it shows duplicates of everything above that was already shown before showing the rest so it's actually less clear, less organized, and less user friendly. I much preferred the old design and the old functionality.
3
griffinmills
2 Messages
•
84 Points
2 years ago
Tremendous amounts of wasted white space on the screen.
Text contrast on the year listing is terrible for people like me with vision issues.
Half of the screen/page is now dedicated to "advertisements" of things I'm not looking for like User Lists, unrelated Galleries, Trailers for products the actor is in... or not.
Photos subsection is enormous and then followed with the "Known For" section which uses smaller pictures for some reason? Lack of consistency is jarring in addition to the lack of practical use.
"Actor" subsection now has content "rolled up" and you need to "drill down" to reveal information that used to simply be present without any interaction from end users.
Font is very large in the "Actor" subsection meaning a lot more scrolling just to see the equivalent of the old data. For example, the font chosen for listing the year is floating in one quarter of the space allocated to it. For television shows, where the year shares space next to the number of episodes, it still only uses 1/2 the space allocated to the two of them combined. All of this while being unaligned with the text to the left of it of Title, Role and (when appropriate) if it is a television show.
Meanwhile the thumbnail icons next to each entry are rather tiny, they are already kind of useless when placed next to the literal title but their size compounds this by lacking detail. If fact it looks like, in the current design, all readability and formatting is subordinate to these tiny (nigh useless) thumbnails?
Clicking on "see all" at the bottom of a list takes several seconds to load. This information was previously simply available rather than being on a click through that takes quite a while to load. For reference I am on Fiber internet allocated a full gigabit upload and download.
The current font choice is extremely ugly on 1920x1080 resolutions. Lower case a, e, g, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, x (the worst as it has two) all appear as though they have a accent on them. Upper case O looks like it has a bad case of bed head on the right side after waking up and the Q has it on both sides!
2/5ths of the vertical screen space is wasted, even at 1920x1080, with large window boxing white columns. I assume this is some form of concession to lazy/easy design unification for tall screen versus wide screen layout?
Overall the design is old fashioned, something like a hybrid of Windows 8 metro and the years old redesign of Netflix but with a begrudging concession to the fact that the more information and text based nature of IMDB.
Having an account option similar to the existing
"Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)"
option could have given you the best of both worlds but as is the money is spent and management will refuse to concede its mistake so we're stuck with it.
Off to find a browser plug in that can hopefully fix this!
3
Pineapples101
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
How do I undo this? There must be a way to put it back as it was?
0
davidblank
2 Messages
•
70 Points
2 years ago
like the other posts: how can we choose to go back? must be an option ????????
12
jordanbrown
3 Messages
•
92 Points
2 years ago
Mostly: It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Less information: no episode details shown by default.
Less dense (even with less information!): for one actress I'm looking at, same-sized windows in the new form show nine credits while in the old form show twelve.
For same-sized windows, old form shows four "Known For" entries; new form shows two. And the poster thumbnails are now smaller.
Links don't look like links. Links are supposed to be blue and underlined. The old form at least has them blue, and underlined when you hover.
Why is that important? I looked for how to get to the actress's bio, and saw the > at the end of the snippet at the top. It's not styled as a link, but OK, it's kind of obvious. It's a smaller click target than the old "See full bio" link. But really that whole block of text is a link. How would I know that, just looking at it?
The type-of-credit filters seem unnecessary; that was already covered by having each section collapsible. Maybe it's just habit, but I find the old form a more natural way to browse.
But dropping the right sidebar is good.
0
Spassvogel42
2 Messages
•
70 Points
2 years ago
It really is terrible. You have wasted incredible amounts of money and time on a poor UI.
0
Spassvogel42
2 Messages
•
70 Points
2 years ago
Just to be more specific. "More To Explore" and "User Lists" should not be on a name page. It's taking up a third of the screen and it's irrelevant.
Having posters for each entry in their filmography is dumb. It takes up too much space and it wastes time loading. More information in less space is ideal here. The trailer at the top and the big fat video thing is dumb. It is a waste of space and you are providing content that nobody wants when they go to a name page.
The collapsing sections in the previous design were ideal because all the information was contained in a tiny area and was visible without scrolling, and then if you wanted to expand you could. The filters are a poor way to do this.
All in all, this is a huge step backwards for IMDB. I can't believe you paid UI designers to make this. It's quite bad. We're all going to start using wikipedia instead because it's a lot more succinct in its delivery of information.
3
Shaggie
7 Messages
•
134 Points
2 years ago
The sorting on the new page seems to not be working correctly.
The sorting issue is similar to the bad sorting I have seen on the mobile site where it does not always sort by year.
Take for instance this page: Peter Outerbridge (actor)
It is sorted by date, but shows a credit from 2018 (The Detectives) above credits for 2019-2022 e.g. In the Dark (2022), Batwoman (2021), Hudson & Rex (2020), Ransom (2019), just to name a few.
In addition, it seems to be very slow to load additional data, e.g. credits.
Edit: (8m later) Maybe the apparent slow to load was a temporary issue, because when I just now re-visited the page, a "See All" option showed up, and when clicking it loading the remaining info reasonably quickly, where as before, it acted as if I had clicked that "See All" option (I hadn't), but didn't load.
(edited)
2
bob3214
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
On an actor page the "see all" button is broken. There are duplicates and it scrolls to the bottom of the list instead of not moving. The duplicates are caused by adding everything to the list and not removing what's already there. Therefore the first 15 items are repeated. Also just playing with the buttons removing and adding things got me an error of "something went wrong". Do you have beta testers? Or is this a "push it to prod and see what breaks" kind of thing?
P.S. Can you make an old.imbd.com kind of like how there's an old.reddit.com?
6
pausert
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
I prefer the old version. It was easier to see all the credits of and actor/actress and dates of their birth and death.
0
Maxence_G
4.5K Messages
•
71K Points
2 years ago
I know the answer. But, I ask the question anyway: would it be possible to a have "reference" view for name pages as we do for title pages?
(edited)
13
gromit82
Champion
•
7.3K Messages
•
274.7K Points
2 years ago
I believe that there is a display error caused by the new redesign at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2984088/ .
The film KIM (2022) at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22874810/ is listed as directed by Erika Kapronczai. It is scheduled to premiere next month, 9 November 2022.
However, on Erika Kapronczai's page at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2984088/, the film is not listed. She is indicated as having 7 director credits yet only 6 are shown, with no way of finding the seventh credit. I've added arrows to the screen shot below to point out the problem:
(edited)
1
stan_lins
2 Messages
•
70 Points
2 years ago
On the Actors pages, the Bio Link under the actors picture is gone. When I right click in the area where the Bio link SHOULD be, I get "Open Image in New Tab".
I see a Biography link at the top of the page, but it isn't convenient to read part of the Bio under the actors picture, then have to scroll up to get the the Biography link to see the remainder to the Bio
7