![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
zydecopolka
2 Messages
•
84 Points
2 years ago
Option in settings to switch to old format please?
Sorry, but this "improvement" is just...not. It's clunky, unintuitive, and not at all user friendly. No one wants to read a whole other page on "how to use" your site. Formerly you could see everything at a glance, or with a bit of scrolling if the credits list was long. You even have to search for the bio link now.
0
usamike
45 Messages
•
780 Points
2 years ago
hi,
i discovered the last redesign of the "Name page". After the sad new design of the title page, it is -again" a desappointment, another one. i really don't understand what coder-designer have in their head.
Did they visit imdb website on 8k huge monitor with super mouse roll wheel and a healhy thumb finger to scroll all the day ?
look at the old design :
https://postimg.cc/JsKMzKvL
look at the new one (sorry for the bad collage, i'm so angry i lost my patience to merge the screenshot)
https://postimg.cc/H8QzpL00
now, to see a regular topic (see what the red arrow is pointing to), i have to scroll down more & more....
what it take 3 screen before, now tooks more than 4 screens !
do i need to buy a bigger screen ?do i need to buy a tablet with big screen to visit imdb ?
no ! Look at all the white spaces in the new deisgn ! what a very bad art-UX-design work we have here now ! very bad work !
You can even see some bad scrollbar in several DIV element !
I wish to adress you my "best regards", but i'm very desappointed. in 30y of website visits, i saw all the longtime website falling back one by one due to bad redesign. There is only ONE (one in 30years) who successed to the redesign ( discogs ) .
I would like to express my sincere condolences to all visitors that have been condamned to see imsb pages died one by one....
0
samolak
4 Messages
•
90 Points
2 years ago
This function war abandoned during the second last redesign of imdb.com.
An example for its benefits: Open the page of Taika Waititi. Scroll down until the entry "Boy" of 2010 appears. Now, most likely several movies with the title "Boy" will have been produced in 2010. And indeed, changing the page to "All credits" ("Credits (text only)") changes the movie's production year to "2010/I", meaning that this is the first (or most important or whatever) of several movies called "Boy" produced in 2010. (Question: Why is this most important information hidden when the page is not in "Credits (text only)" mode?)
Clicking on "Boy" leads you the the movie's page where it is named as just "Boy (2010)". Before the second last redesign of imdb.com the title was "Boy (2010-I)". Without this most vital information you'll never learn that there were several movies of that title in that year and which of those movies is the one in question.
I can only pray that you will re-esablish this, as said before, most vital detail in any mode of any page of anybody who was involved in that movie and, most important, on the movie's page as well.
Kind regards,
Wieland Samolak
0
Jules
2 Messages
•
90 Points
2 years ago
What can we do to have our old and preferred version back again? Just look at the comments, and how many users are saying they agree with those who are angry and disgusted that these changes have been made. And, to try to explain the changes and finish with ‘hope this helps’ is infuriating and patronising. We don’t want explanations. We want this decision to ruin IMDb reversed!
0
xianjiro
45 Messages
•
1.4K Points
2 years ago
So, got an email (which references a post I'm unable to find) from this Sprinkler thread we're commenting on and another user said, "I am going to stop using IMDB and either use Wikipedia, or one of the open source alternatives"
Just thought I'd check, what other alternatives are there? I know about Letterboxd and TMDb (The Movie Database). Are there any other alternatives? I'll admit, having used IMDb since 2001, inertia keeps me here. Both the options I mention have not attracted my interest due to their emphasis on graphics over text, but I might be interested in something else in addition to Wikipedia if it wasn't all images and video. (Yeah, I know I'm swimming against the current.)
1
bderoes
Champion
•
5K Messages
•
118K Points
2 years ago
Many people have included in their posts here that few are praising the new page design. I hope not to generate a lot of comments with what I'm about to say. (Let me first admit that I use an ad blocker, so my experience is more streamlined as a result.)
I just discovered a new feature that I like a lot. When filtering the person's credits, the Project Type grouping works for any job category. So now I can look at choreography (Miscellaneous) credits by TV vs Movie. Here's an example (Miriam Nelson).
Granted, that can also be done with the filmosearch feature, but not as easily, and the job title is not displayed with each project. That matters because choreographer is lumped into Miscellaneous Crew, which also includes Stage Director and other jobs a choreographer might have held.
Also, the filmosearch version includes both TV series and TV episodes separately, which has always bothered me, especially when the person was on a later episode of a long-running show, and their filmosearch credits list the series long before the episode when sorting by release date. (filmosearch also inflates their credit count because of the series inclusion.) BTW, I know that I can filter out the series credits altogether, but sometimes a person is only listed at the series level.
And in filmosearch, each type of TV title is a separate category, so you don't just click once for TV. Miriam has 5 TV categories.
Other things I like about the new design:
+ being able to add a person to my lists directly from the Name page.
+ the Expand Category links at both the top and bottom of the list of credits, which saves time loading the credits when you think ahead
+ the information icon on each title, which provides a lot of info, potentially saving me a trip to the title page. We can even add the title to a list from the pop-up!
+ the fact that most links can be opened in a New Tab.
+ being able to filter credits by genre on the Name page
Sure, there are things I don't like, and I've posted about most of them already. But for me, the new features far outweigh them. Here are most of my negatives, including some new ones that I hadn't reported yet:
- that I have to click 3 different spots (deselect the 3 pre-chosen categories) to get all the credits in the new format (I know about the All Credits view)
- that I have to scroll within the filter pop-up to access the link for View All Credits; I've suggested it belongs at the top
- that I have to click an arrow to scroll through the person's categories (on the same line as the filter button); I preferred the old-view listing all the categories at once
- that the year and info icon is so far to the right of the title, although it's good that the years are all lined up. But why not put them (and the (i)) as the first thing on the line, esp. since they're a fixed length.
- the separation of the "popular" links in the All Topics menu above the categorized ones. (Don't like it on the title page either.) My eye goes directly to the columns of choices.
- would be nice to have a jump-link at the top of the Name page to go directly to the Credits section
- that the Seen feature isn't in the All Topics menu
- I'm forgetting at least one other item that I've posted about here.
Enough for now.
1
SteveG
3 Messages
•
90 Points
2 years ago
Why ruin the good thing you used to have? The new format is terrible.
0
zvona2222
4 Messages
•
104 Points
2 years ago
I just created an account on this community site so I can tell you to give us an option for the old IMDB site because this one is horrible
2
Rake1204
11 Messages
•
170 Points
2 years ago
Your new layout is shockingly bad. Pages don't load, directors pages are missing and and keeps saying 'problem, try again later'
I need imdb for my job on a daily basis. Sort this out by going back to the old one layout. Truly awful.
9
kzflxqrkrrpyaprqap
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
Why must everything be so slow? Every redesigned page is much slower than in old design… how many JavaScript libraries do you need to display a simple movie list? And I don't talk just about download speed, there is slow-down just after download, everything is sluggish. It could be done so much better… simpler and quicker.
1
Hangerz22
2 Messages
•
72 Points
2 years ago
The credits feature has been ruined by the redesign. The thumbnail images of movies add absolutely nothing and make referencing anyone with a long list of credits an unnecessarily time consuming task. The old format was far more user friendly.
1
jeorj_euler
10.6K Messages
•
225.1K Points
2 years ago
Here is a screen cap of an example of what I see most of the time whenever I click the "all topics" button:
"We are unable to load this content at this time. Please refresh the page or try again later."
4
djcvjfdjv
1 Message
•
60 Points
2 years ago
nobody needed this change, like the last not so long ago. what's worse, it's a bad change. everyone's here to tell you. you're literally wasting money paying people to do a job that's not needed, but nobody's good enough to tell your bosses.
0
zydecopolka
2 Messages
•
84 Points
2 years ago
Option in settings to switch to old format please?
Sorry, but this "improvement" is just...not. It's clunky, unintuitive, and not at all user friendly. No one wants to read a whole other page on "how to use" your site. Formerly you could see everything at a glance, or with a bit of scrolling if the credits list was long. You even have to search for the bio link now.
10
xianjiro
45 Messages
•
1.4K Points
2 years ago
Here's another example of what I find so freakin' annoying about this 'improvement':
It's possible you might guess whose page I'm looking at, but I doubt it, even from the pictures that are shown. Give up?
What does the crap I've circled in yellow have to do with -name withheld since we don't have spoiler tags-?
1