Bethanny's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

4.5K Messages

 • 

47.7K Points

Thursday, October 20th, 2022 2:07 PM

IMDb Name Page Redesign

IMDb Name Page Redesign

Image

 

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

1 Message

 • 

64 Points

1 year ago

Is there an option to view the original format? Thank you.

60 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Spot on.

2 Messages

 • 

76 Points

@rwood10​ maybe it works for you too,

when i visit imdb without signing in, i get the old design

12 Messages

 • 

230 Points

Now that is a hot tip 👍 Logging out for sure. New design is a clunky, unnecessary mess.

14 Messages

 • 

470 Points

@twistachoo​ whenever I'm on google chrome I don't have it, but when I use microsoft edge I do

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

@rwood10​ Same. If Reddit gives its morlocks the option to “use Old Reddit”, then IMDb should be bending over backwards to do the same thing.

28 Messages

 • 

464 Points

@TrevX​ Hmm, opposite. On Edge I see the old names style, on Brave and Chrome I get this new touchscreen debacle.

4 Messages

 • 

104 Points

@rwood10​ I want the original format too, this one sucks

2 Messages

 • 

78 Points

I am going to try logging out to see if I can get the original format back, but I REALLY think it should be added as an option to revert.  With each redesign they just keep getting worse.

8 Messages

 • 

266 Points

1 year ago

I DONT WANT THIS NEW IMDb Name Page Redesign 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled I DONT WANT THIS NEW IMDb Name Page Redesign

12 Messages

 • 

230 Points

@Warstream​ It is terrible. How are we still suffering through this??

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

1 year 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. 

12 Messages

 • 

230 Points

@camarsh13​ Three months and we are still stuck with this garbage redesign. It feels like using one of those gigantic old house phones made for morbidly obese senior citizens. Everything is far apart and difficult to navigate. I cannot come up with one positive thing to say and everyone seems to agree... So why are we still stuck with this without the option of using the old design?!

555 Messages

 • 

13K Points

  • @twistachoo​ "So why are we still stuck with this without the option of using the old design?!"

    Because people at IMDB think they know better than users what users want. Simple (and as arrogant) as that.

    First rule of software design - never remove an existing feature or user-interface behaviour; only ever add an additional feature/UI, and give users the abiliity to switch between old and new forever. Some (maybe even many) people may prefer the new layout, but it is the height of arrogance and offensiveness on IMDBs part to say that everyone must use it.

    Since the code exists to produce the "compatibility" layout ("three-dots icon", "View all credits" option) I cannot see why that layout cannot be offered in prefernce to the truncated only-the-most-recent credits format, as a user-selectable permanent configuration option. But I'm only the user. What do I know?

    The other problem with the new format is that the "Edit" button for a person's page is no longer at the bottom of the page - you have to scroll up past irrelevant "More to explore" links/panels to get there. If the browser window is full-screen, it's fine. But if you set the browser to occupy half the screen width (on a 1920x1080 screen) so you can display a video player app at the same time for transcribing credits, then the irrelevant links/panels of "More to explore" wrap so they are below "Edit". That's a fundamental design flaw that should never have got through user-acceptance testing. Do IMDB actually do any user-acceptance testing - or at least do they do it in a way that means they will actually take on board an acceptance panel's comments and suggestions?

    If a UI works, why is there the constant compulsion to change it. Change the back-end code which generates a page, by all means - like replacing a tired old engine with a new more powerful one in a car - but for heaven's sake leave the car's controls exactly as they were, for those people who want this.

    A lot of us have made this sort of comment since the new page layout was introduced, but I am afraid that I have lost all confidence that Col Needham et al are prepared to act upon constructive suggestions that we make. The "consultation" exercises seem to be for paying lip-service to the idea of consultation "we've already committed to making these changes, irrevocably - and if you don't like them, tough". Not an admirable stance for IMDB to take :-(

    Ideally there should be two different IMDB sites:

    - one for casual viewers who want flashy layout and lots of links to "More things you might like" which are not actually relvant to the task in hand

    - another much simpler layout which is more geared to the army of people like myself who contribute new data and may need to research a person's exsting credits to make sure that we've identified the correct John Doe from amongst John Doe (I), John Doe (II) etc, and which displays all of a person's filmography, rather a few most recent credits, and "click here to display a few more" (rinse and repeat).

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.8K Points

In general, event-driven Web page designs are overly abundant.

2 Messages

 • 

84 Points

1 year 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!

7 Messages

 • 

198 Points

@griffinmills​ You pretty much stated in full detail the exact things I was coming on here to explain about the issues this "redesign" has. It is extremely nonfriendly for users and drags out the amount of time it takes to get the information that you used to be able to fully get just by opening the page.

The most annoying feature that I have issues with is having to stay on the page when you click on a link for "Episodes" instead of them just having them show already on the page when it loads because it's now a pop-up box. I now have to go through an immense amount of runaround just to get simple information because I can no longer use the "Open in another tab" option because all it does is reopen the same page on a new tab. To top that off, it doesn't immediately load all the credits on an actors page anymore. You now have to click "show all" and then scroll up to try to find where you were in the list because it jumps to the bottom of the page. That's a VERY bad setup.

That increases the amount of time it takes to try to get information fast. I think that they added that simply to increase the time people have to spend on the site to get more information, so it looks better for their stockholders because it'll show people as spending a TON more time on the site... because they'll HAVE to in order to get the information they're trying to get! 

Please let me know when you find a userscript or browser plug and where to get it that will help with this time sucker and very bad redesign. This totally goes against the smart business practice and solid fact of the matter, where the things that draw more customers and users to a place is when they can save both time and money. At this rate, if I am unable to get a browser plugin, I'll spend more time on Wikipedia to get the information I want. 

The sad part of this is, IMDB isn't going to fix it. They will just label the users as "people who just don't like change" and keep the unwieldy page no matter how many people say how bad it is.

(edited)

10 Messages

 • 

244 Points

@griffinmills​ I have the OWL Firefox addon that works on most sites, but not this one because of the half white/half dark design. Hope this saves you a little bit of headache. If you do find one that works, please share.

(edited)

4 Messages

 • 

98 Points

I agree about Year being not emphasised enough. Especially on desktop - there's lots of white space between the name of the film and the year.

I like to browse filmography by reading the name of the film, then the year, and proceed down the list. Right now, this is harder than the first version of the page.

It seems to me that the fonts work well on mobile, but work less well on desktop with the white space in between.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

1 year ago

How do I undo this? There must be a way to put it back as it was?

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

1 year ago

like the other posts: how can we choose to go back? must be an option ????????

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@davidblank​  No sorry, there is no opt-out as this is no longer a beta test. We have factored in the feedback from the beta and this the new version of the page.  Please see the FAQ for launch details.   Hope this helps. 

4 Messages

 • 

100 Points

Then good bye, this "new" format is too irritating to deal with. 

60 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

No, it doesn't help. Not one single tiny little bit. bit.

I have no idea why IMDb sees fit to continually make stupid, unnecessary, counterproductive and utterly useless "improvements" but for some unfathomable reason, you do. So now, after 20+ years of putting up with this garbage, you've finally done it.

I'm out of here.

(edited)

555 Messages

 • 

13K Points

@Col_Needham​ " Hope this helps."

No it doesn't even BEGIN to help. You asked us for our opinions and we gave constructive suggestions, describing what we liked and what we didn't, and suggested how you could do things better. Despite your assurances during beta testing, you seem to have ignored our suggestions and continued as per the original beta design. So asking for our opinions was a complete and utter waste of everyone's time.

Not everybody wants the same thing. You seem to have an aversion to displaying all the episodes of all TV programmes that a person has worked on, in a single display, even as a non-default option that has to be enabled.

And don't peddle that waffle about the code needing to be updated. You know as well as we do that it would have been perfectly possible to modernise the code (eg write it in a different scripting language) while keeping the existing amount of information, even if the way it was displayed was altered by different CSS options.

You seem to be using "code needs to be moderised" as an excuse for totally changing (and dramatically worsening) the user-interface.

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.8K Points

Martn, right! Code can most certainly be modernized without changing the skin, chassis or dashboard. What is "modernized" even supposed to mean, anyway? Everything from the last twenty years is already rather modern.

7 Messages

 • 

134 Points

@Col_Needham

Hi again. I still don't like the new design. Can you at leat give us the old text view of the credits in the new "Text view of credits" section please?

I don't like to see big lists of episodes. I like the way it was before. Just 5 episodes. And we can expand to rest of the episodes if we wan't. That way we don't get the big lists when an actor is in a telenovela por example. I'm an actor so I can really tell all actor like it this way. I've been speaking with a lot of actors friends and they have the same opinion. Thank you. 

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

@Col_Needham​ You may have thought to factor it, but you didn't care about what people actually wanted. It's a disaster of wasted space.
Maybe those of us who were still on the old page didn't need to move.

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@mrkevensantos​  Thanks for the feedback …

Can you at leat give us the old text view of the credits in the new "Text view of credits" section please? I don't like to see big lists of episodes.

The text view was created based upon feedback during the beta-testing over the summer with the very specific goal of presenting all credits, across all categories, and all episodes open by default so that any credit / character / etc is visible and can be located on the page without any additional clicks.  You can see a good use case in this part of the old beta feedback thread -> https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-beta-optin/62db09f1e232bb632089ba01?commentId=62db1035c998636027ac8d0b&replyId=62ee311327c9e55d81c8e5bb

Hope this helps. 

7 Messages

 • 

150 Points

What is it about new designers thinking they can always do better than the original folks, who thought and thought about what format is best, how to best minimize clicks and scrolling, screen space constraints, etc.

45 Messages

 • 

1.4K Points

@Col_Needham​ No. It doesn't. It makes using IMDb for what I do A LOT harder. I really hate this new design -- especially relying on photos instead of names/titles. I absolutely DETEST the redesign! Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. 👎🏽👎🏽

Also, load times on my mobile device are extremely slow when trying to find information in a nm page.

10 Messages

 • 

266 Points

@Col_Needham​ Who did your beta testing? 12 year olds on their iPhones? Like everyone else on here, this new one is much harder to use, required many more clicks to do what you could do before in one click, and is visually unappealing. Short comment, it sucks. 

2 Messages

 • 

76 Points

@Col_Needham​ That's disgusting. I'm going to find some other way for movie info till IMDB gets their sanity back.

3 Messages

 • 

92 Points

1 year 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.

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

1 year ago

It really is terrible.  You have wasted incredible amounts of money and time on a poor UI. 

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

1 year 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.

555 Messages

 • 

13K Points

@Spassvogel42​ "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."

I can't decide whether the fault lies with the requirements spec that was given to the developers, or the developers not doing what was asked. Either way, the results are so bad that it makes IMDB look very amateurish. I firmly believe that it is so bad that IMDB should swallow their pride and make a U-turn to go back to the way it was. If Liz Truss can do it, so can IMDB ;-)

I would say that "It's quite bad" is the understatement of the century. It is spectacularly bad.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.8K Points

The bit about "More To Explore" and "User Lists" is interesting, but I've tended to prefer the presence of the user lists section over the presence of the more-to-explore section any day, because of the content differences.

12 Messages

 • 

230 Points

"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." - @Spassvogel42

EXACTLY. THIS. And having precisely THREE filters automatically selected, regardless of the number of categories in which a person has credits is completely ludicrous. Sure, like in the old design, allow people to select their Top 3 categories, but this (very poor) re-design makes it look like no other categories exist. And the only way to View All is to DE-select the AUTO-selected items one by one until nothing is selected is... Ra Nd0m and idiotic. This is not how people's brains work. Please revert to the old design ASAP @Col_Needham​ and IMDb.

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@twistachoo​ Thanks for the feedback. 

Taken from a longer update here, for those people seeking a quick route to view all credits, please see the "All credits" link in the "All topics" menu as shown in this screen-grab (see red highlight to activate the menu and yellow highlight to access the all credits link):

7 Messages

 • 

134 Points

1 year 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)

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@Shaggie​  Thanks for the feedback.  This is a data error rather than an issue with the name page itself.  Episode 3.7 was incorrectly listed as still being in-production and it also lacked a release date.  Corrections to this data have been submitted and the sort order will be updated once they have been processed. 

7 Messages

 • 

134 Points

@Col_Needham, I do not recall it being apparent that it was still marked as "In Production". In addition, there was nothing in the sorting that indicates that "In Production" titles, or other similar incomplete works, would be listed first.

Also, perhaps those should be shown with a question mark beside the date, or some other way, to clearly indicate that they are tentative.

I do appreciate the update to explain what happened. 

Thank you. 

(edited)

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

1 year 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?

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@bob3214​ Thanks for the feedback.  We are unable to reproduce the “see all” issue you describe above, sorry.  Please can you provide the URL of a name page where it behaves like this, and ideally, a screenshot of the duplication so we can take a look. Thanks. 

Do you have beta testers?

The new pages were extensively beta tested by hundreds of thousands of customers over the summer (as previously announced here) and this final new version takes the testing into account. 

Please see the FAQ for further launch details.   Hope this helps. 

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@bob3214​  We have since been able to reproduce this duplication — it is a new bug and not the intended behaviour at all.  This has been reported to the appropriate team. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

7 Messages

 • 

198 Points

@Col_Needham​ I hate to break it to you but the "see all" drop down issue of jumping to the bottom of the page and then HAVING to scroll back up and trying to find where you were in the first place, is happening for a LOT of people. I tried it in Firefox, Chrome, and Edge and it happened in every single browser. Not to mention the fact that having episode information now come up in a popup on the bottom of the page instead of just being listed already, limits our ability to visit several other pages easily because we have to click on every episode link and wait for the popup just to be able to open the information in a new page whereas before, we could just open in a new page easily. The credits list also takes up more room and browser power but gives LESS information than it did previously.

And I think the majority of your Beta testers were/are employees of IMDB who were afraid to tell the truth and/or regular people who just want to agree with you people because they think it'll give them special access to the site. I've been a beta tester for sites and you guys NEVER listen to the people who are giving you honest feedback because you just want to hear the people who agree with you and tend to ignore the rest.

(edited)

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@Sabriel​  Thanks for the feedback; there’s a new bug with “See all” which we are investigating now and is likely is part of the behaviour you are seeing, sorry.  

To see all episode credits all at once, please use the “Text view of credits” link on the filter menu (access details explained above). 

The new design was extensively tested with a wide range of customers privately during development and it follows best practices of scalability across different device sizes, accessibility, and localisation.  It was then tested in an open beta across the summer where every IMDb customer was invited to test the page and around a million people opted-in to the beta at this time.  While the new design is a large change, and it obviously takes time to people to see all of the advantages of the new design, it tested extremely well against our success criteria. The final version of the page which is live now takes the beta feedback into account as far as it was possible to do so.  It is worth exploring the page and giving it a chance as it supports a much wider range of customers and use cases. 

Hope this helps. 

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@bob3214​  The credit duplication bug has now been fixed.  Please let us know if there are any further issues. 

13 Messages

 • 

326 Points

@Col_Needham​ I haven't been trying the new Name formats since it's not one of my main-used features, but from this and other responses, it appears that I'll be using the "Text view" a lot. 

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

1 year 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.

4.4K Messages

 • 

70K Points

1 year 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)

Champion

 • 

7.1K Messages

 • 

272.1K Points

1 year 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:

There is no indication that she has any "Upcoming" credits which would include  KIM. This problem was previously raised in the thread at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/i-cant-see-a-movie-under-the-directors-page-but-i-can-see-the-director-under-the-movies-page/6355bced232e4267b002f17c but I have brought it here because I suspected that it is connected to the redesign. In fact, in that thread, another contributor indicated that he still had access to the old design, and the film KIM  was still listed in the director's filmography for him, which makes it even more likely that this is an error caused by the redesign.

(edited)

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@gromit82​  Thanks for the bug report.  We have alerted the appropriate team. 

It is technically a data error, but this is such a common case that we will need to do a larger data clean-up on our side vs fixing this one title.  The problem appears to be that title has not been released, yet it lacks a production status so it falls into neither section of the filmography.  

A big advantage of the new pages is that there is no longer a huge tangle of repeated display logic across all of the front-end clients so this can now be fixed in one place at the source. It is this kind of entangled display logic, repeated across every IMDb interface, which made things like adding new genres much harder than it should be (per your earlier point in this thread) — we just need to finish moving all of the pages. 

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

1 year 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

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@stan_lins​ You should be able to click anywhere in the mini-biography text (aside from any linked names or titles in the text) to reach the full biography subpage, or failing that, the “>” link at the end of the bio text extract.  

Hope this helps. 

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

@Col_Needham Thanks for the reply.  What you describe is true, I can click in the mini-bio and that page I'm on will redirect to the bio.  But I want to be able to right-click and open the bio in a new tab.  No matter where I right-click in the mini-biography text or the ">" at the end, the option I see in the pop-up is "Open Image in New Tab".  I am using Firefox, in case you need to know.

Employee

 • 

6.7K Messages

 • 

172.2K Points

@stan_lins​ Thanks for clarifying, we will take a look at the issue.

1 Message

 • 

76 Points

Bug report: viewing the trailer part of the actor page causes very high amounts of gpu usage, movie page doesn't seem to do that

Also yes, like everyone else is saying, the page is now less informational and more difficult to use.

10.6K Messages

 • 

223.8K Points

Hi, sh4d3s. What are some of the important hardware specs of the device you're using? Which operating system are you running? Which browser (along with version) are you running? What kind of plugins, addons and extensions are installed?

Just to note, I've not observed any performance issues with playing trailers or demo reels when using the lasted version of Chrome on a NR-capable smartphone. It's a whole different story when dealing with technology debuting long before 2022. I don't know. I'm always worried that device manufacturers might deliberately quietly disrupting the performance of any tool that is not has not been updated within a most recent three-month period.

45 Messages

 • 

1.4K Points

@Col_Needham​ Yeah, but unfortunately this means while scrolling on a mobile device we're constantly being diverted to other pages for content we aren't looking for. TBH, I simply WILL NOT be using IMDb's nm pages on mobile -- it's an exercise in frustration that I just don't need.

2 Messages

 • 

86 Points

The old look was way better. Way more comfortable. The new looks cheap and rigid