IMDb Name Page Redesign

@Kwhite2908 

Joined Tue, Nov 15, 2022

- - -

? ?

Post a few samples 

- - -

Users post comments here about
"stupid to change something beloved by IMDB fans"

IMDb Community Forums > IMDb > IMDb.com
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/topics/imdbcom/5f4951c662e5fc53cfeb955b

.

@ACT_1​ Welcome back to Sprinklr! Where have you been?

@keyword_expert​ 

? ?

Had some medical problems

A few days in a hospital and a few days rehab center

Not a fun time without my computer

Not a topic to chat about here

.

@ACT_1​ Yikes! I am sorry to hear that. Welcome back. 

@ACT_1​ So sorry to hear that. Glad to hear you're okay now and hope that your health remains steadily improving from now on! 

I have lost count on how many times IMDb has "improved" its site and . . . it has become worse.

Why do you have to keep screwing around with a good thing?

Who's in charge here?

@JBonafont​ 

if I need to see the DP and the Art Director, they are on on different pages so I have to click on the film, then click on crew, then click on camera department

This sounds like it has nothing to do with any recent change. You are describing the mobile view of the "full cast and crew" page with a URL that begins with m.imdb.com

If you are not using a mobile device but are redirected to the mobile view, that could be a bug.

@Peter_pbn​ 

So this seems to be the case.  What seems to happen is that going to the mobile view has become the default, and there's no way to get out of that without opening a new imdb window.  

it used to be i could type "Movie Title imdb" and it would go to the main page in list view, but now it goes straight to the mobile view, even when i am on my desktop or laptop.   Unfortunately the search window address still just reads imdb.com unless I click on it to see the detailed address, so there was no clue this was happening.

This is huge relief.  I just have to be more precise in my search window i guess.  not sure why it thinks my desktop is a phone though.  :-/

@JBonafont​ I hate cell phones but it seems that one can't do anything anymore without them. Just last night I was prevented by the new ID.me requirement to get into IRS.gov to give them money! All the new security requirements to catch fraudsters are making some things impossible for honest people. (Apologies for my off-topic rant but I had to vent somehow somewhere.) 

In today's world, the agencies of the governments are some of the most infamous when it comes to requiring either (1) a SMS-capable cell phone, (2) an email address, (3) a telephone of any kind at all, or (4) internet access, in order even do something as classic as scheduling an appointment. There may come a day when we won't even be able to renew permits/licenses, pay taxes, file tax returns, pay citation tickets, file suits at law, in person or through conventional mail. Even some matters ordinarily handled in courthouse are done online through municipal websites now. (I can imagine a future, whereby people accused of misdemeanors will receive text messages or social media notifications ordering them to go/stay under house arrest. What happens if the person is homeless and doesn't have smartphone?)

@cjsound​  Thanks for the bug report.  This has been forwarded to the appropriate team. 

@SJC​  Thanks for the feedback.  Your credits are still on https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2517827/ — by default we show credits for the three categories with the most number of credits, which for you are camera & electrical | actress | second unit or assistant director.  The fastest way to see all credits in all sections is to click the “X” next to each of the three  categories in the list directly under the “Credits” heading and then all credits sections will show, or you can scroll through the same list of additional categories under the “Credits” heading  and select the individual ones which you wish to see:

Hope this helps. 

@SJC  The image does not appear to be posting above so trying a separate post:

Hi Col, thank you so much for clarifying, I really appreciate it : ) 

@lunamond91​ Yes, this was built.  It is the "Text view of credits" which we have referenced across other posts in this thread.  It can be found via the blue filter icon directly under the "Credits" heading, and it has recently been more conveniently added to the "All topics" menu so it can be accessed without scrolling.  Click the "All topics" menu in the upper right of any name page (highlighted in red in the screen-grab below) and then choose "Text view" in the lower left of the pop-up menu (highlighted in yellow in the screen-grab below):

which in this example takes you to https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428065/filmotype/ 

Hope this helps. 

@Col_Needham​ - this still requires two clicks every time before the page is presented in a useful way.   This needs to be made a configurable item like "Show Reference View" is.  

@Col_Needham​ Hi Col, thanks for your replay and the explanation. But as other users already wrote, it still needs additional clicks. Best would be a preference that I get immediatly redirected to the text view after I clicked on a name in the cast of a title or another thing I usually do is doing a google search like "site:www.imdb.com/name Felicity Jones Rogue One" to find the correct Felicity Jones I'm looking for even if there are more than one actress with this name. Both ways of getting to a title page require additional clicks to get the text view now. So in my eyes a preference like "redirecting to text view" would be the best solution for me.

But nevertheless, thanks for including my wish for a compact and detailed version so far.

@espencer​ 

this still requires two clicks every time before the page is presented in a useful way

Thanks for the feedback, this is covered earlier at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-redesign/6351563ae7100d725d54c0bb?commentId=6354b38bb393e26a279b6b23&replyId=635cf7dd5c8f315ee267bb52

@espencer​ not the nicest way I know, but I found a way to get the reference view immediately. Don't use imdb search, use google search and search for "site:www.imdb.com/name filmotype" and the actor you're looking for. Depending on the browser you only have to search for the whole term once and in future you only have to type "s" and the whole term is proposed. I'm using the optional Firefox Search Bar for that and it works fine.

You can also use Bing Search the same way if bing is your favourite but my experience is if you also add more information to the search term, in case there are more than one actors with the same name, Bing Search sometimes don't find the actor, google does

Luna

Hi Dave,

I have no idea but I do many searches, if a actor / actress acted in a specific movie/series/episode it will take so much more time if I have to do several mouseclicks before I see all the credits in future. And Col Needham said during the testing phase, there will be a version of the websites that shows all data immediately. I hope it will come soon and I hope too that I can switch back to the old version until it comes. Otherwise it will be much longer work for me.

Luna

@lunamond91​ Yes, this is supported, please see our reply below at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-redesign/6351563ae7100d725d54c0bb?commentId=6375e7985ce5a035bfebc176&replyId=6377bb5a5ce5a035bfebf02e 

@dopinginho​ I can live with individual sections being expanded or contracted by default, based on how the person is best known. I think the old name page did someting similar.

But what really annoys me is that even for a section which is "open", you only see the most recent credits by default and have to click a button to expand to all credits. It's as if IMDB is implying that the only relevant credits are the recent ones.

A lot is solved by the "Text view of credits", but that link/button should be placed on the initial view  of the name page instead of buried in a sub-menu. At present it is a well-kept secret that would not be found unless someone told you where to look for it. I've not yet heard an explanation of why the "Text view of credits" page is acceptible to IMDB (eg it's coded to be easy to maintain) whereas the original name page was not acceptible/maintainable. If new code had to be written for the "Text view of credits" page, why couldn't the new code have been written to produce the exact format of the original name page be reproduced? I'm not suggesting that it should be the default view for all users - unlike IMDB, I accept that different people want/need different things - but what I am suggesting is that it should be the default view for some users... those who select it as a user preference on the same config page as the selection of Reference View for titles.

Col, I'd be grateful for an explanation of:

- why IMDB can't make an exact copy of the old name page format available for those users who want it, given that IMDB is happy to provide a partial substitute (text view of credits) which is presumably more maintainable than the code for generating the old page (if you have to write code to produce something that's almost right, why not do the full job instead?)

- why the choice of name page format (old or new) can't be made "sticky" on the user preference page. If there is a good technical reason, then that's fine, but if it's "we can't be bothered" or "we think we know better than you", then shame on  IMDB :-(


This whole matter of the new name pages has opened up a much bigger can of worms than you probably evisaged. The vast majority of responses I've seen on this thread have been in condemnation of the new format, with only a few in praise of it. OK, I realised that people are more likely to write feedback if it is negative, and are less likely to be bothered to write if it's to say "I like it", but I don't think that's the full story. IMDB needs to have the courage to admit that they got it wrong and have produced something that mosst people actively loathe. We've tried to be helpful in offering suggestions of ways that the new page format can be improved (things that don't necessarily involve tearing up the new work and goign back to the old way!) but I'm not sure you've really taken on board what it is we are saying is fundamentally wrong with the new layout, which makes it considerably less usable.

I'm all for innovation and improvement. I accept that not everyone has the same needs - I  imagine that broadly speaking users can be divided into casual browsers and full-time submitters of information - so I'm very much in favour of a new page format if that's what users are wanting. All I am suggesting is that the new page format should not be foisted on everyone, and that users should have the choice over how the information is presented, preferably with such a choice ontly having to be made once, rather than every time every name page is loaded (as with the selection of "Text view of credits"). In other words, only ever add new features; never remove existing ones.

That aspect of the question has to do with the Web-browsing experience on mobile devices.

Well, there is the text-only version of pages.