IMDb Name Page Redesign

@FAZ​ The answer to your question is already listed immediately above at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-name-page-redesign/6351563ae7100d725d54c0bb?commentId=63ab0eb19bb80c1cea25751b&replyId=63ab12649bb80c1cea25752a 

@Chris_Patx​  Thanks for the problem report. The featured videos are not user contributable and are mostly matched automatically (which the software occassionally gets wrong, sorry).  The Video FAQ at https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/discover-watch/videos-faq/GJRQPZZ8AG6RSM63 contains details on how to report mismatches:

We have submitted edits to these videos on your behalf and the changes should be reflected on IMDb shortly.  Thanks again for letting us know. 

@Peter_pbn​ Thanks; noted for the team. 

I am not an admin, however, for me the page you list comes up instantly for me. Speed test for the page shows it loaded fully, including the sections you list, for me in 3 seconds. 

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

I am not an admin, however, for me the page you list comes up instantly for me. Speed test for the page shows it loaded for me in 3 seconds. 

Yes, it looks like it loads instantly, but in fact it does not. You need to scroll and then you will see delays loading the sections that I mentioned. Try to scroll from movie to movie and eventually you will see it.

For example, the Ca$h movie site seemed to load rather quickly in Firefox, but Hellraiser III was slow as hell again. This isn't a new problem, this has been introduced since the new design, and it really is getting on my nerves. IMDB should be ashamed, sorry I have to say this, but it's the truth.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104409/

It does load all of it completely including the sections you indicated.  Hellraiser took 4 seconds to completely load.   I do not see your problem on my side.  I suggest record a video of how it is loading for you and post it here so people can see what it is doing.    If needed I can record a video this evening and upload it to show you that it is loading correctly on my end. 

It may be an issue on your end??

May want to run a upload/download speed tests to see what you bandwidth is running at.  Also are you running any ad blockers or other browser extensions.  What AntiVirus are you using?  Have you cleared you cache and cookies?  Since it started after the switch maybe something in the cache from the old layout still is on there that is causing an issue.  What is the speed of your PC? What version of Windows/operating system? What version of browsers?  There are so many things to look at to try to figure out why it is slow.  

For me I am using Windows 11 Pro Version 21H2 with AMD Six-Core Processor   @  3.50 GHz.  32 GB of memory. With Ethernet Card 1000/100 with internet connection of 200GB. Using Edge and Chrome.

Try Running Wisecleaner 365 (free version) to clean up things that could be causing issues,

@Navin2000  Thanks for the feedback.  Please see the advice mentioned in https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/why-is-imdb-displaying-differently-on-my-browser/GF2ZAR69V859XLHF ... in the majority of similar cases any slowdowns are caused by ad blockers interfering with the experience.   Please let us know whether this fixes the issue.

Hello @Navin2000, 

Sorry to hear you're experiencing this problem.  Please refer to our Help page, Why is IMDb displaying differently on my browser?. Please let us know if this does not resolve your issue.

The opinion that even four seconds is too long is valuable nevertheless. We can more clearly see the problem with such a delay, when navigating forward and back through the individual history of an active browser tab.

I've noticed that having the DevTools window open can also slow thing down slightly, or on occasion a lot. I concur about the new design containing extreme amounts of JavaScript bloat.

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

I am not an admin, however, for me the page you list comes up instantly for me. Speed test for the page shows it loaded fully, including the sections you list, for me in 3 seconds. 

Trust me, it's not a bandwidth thing. It is however possible that you have a more powerful machine, I'm using a Lenovo laptop (Win 10) with Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM and a 512GB SSD. The browser I'm using is Vivaldi, but I get this with Edge and Firefox as well. Keep in mind, this is about a small but annoying 2 or 3 second loading delay, so not a major slowdown. I believe it's related to JavaScript and clearing cache and cookies won't solve anything in this particular case.

@Col_Needham​ 

@Navin2000  Thanks for the feedback. In the majority of similar cases any slowdowns are caused by ad blockers interfering with the experience. Please let us know whether this fixes the issue.

It doesn't matter whether adblockers are enabled or not, it stays the same. I'm talking about the small 2 to 3 second delay that you get to see while a page is loading certain elements. This is especially annoying if you instantly navigate to the bottom of the page via mouse gesture (without scrolling), to quickly read the reviews. Then you will notice this delay even more.

The old design didn't have this problem, I don't see why these pages can't be loaded instantly, nowadays most people have got broadband connections anyway. This problem is caused by heavy usage of JavaScript, so IMDB needs a redesign. The new look isn't as bad as I thought initially, but the speed is a joke.

@Jon​ 

See my comment above.  I do have another comment about the ads that are served on IMDB, this is another joke. I noticed that the ad on top of the page will pop up in your face while scrolling down, you have to be kidding me? No wonder that people are using adblockers, you guys are practically forcing us to do so with all of these annoyances.

@jeorj_euler​ 

I've noticed that having the DevTools window open can also slow thing down slightly, or on occasion a lot. I concur about the new design containing extreme amounts of JavaScript bloat.

Yes exactly, it's all about the JavaScript bloat. Like I said, I see no difference with adblockers turned off or on in Edge, Vivaldi and Firefox. You will get to see these annoying delays anyway. Keep in mind, this is even with the built-in adblockers turned off, so not just adblocking extensions.

@Sandy​ 

It are also childish to say that the peopel schould be ashamed. Yes the site runs slow.

I don't see anything childish about this. It's the same as Microsoft that should be ashamed for making such a mess of Windows 11. These are big companies that should be doing better. If a developer produces a subpar product, then somebody should step in. The current IMDB website simply isn't good enough.

I disagree with you on view of IMDB and Windows 11. Neither company needs to feel ashamed about them. I applaud both for their hard work on it. I also disagree with your view on other things as well. When you make the statements the way you do and say company should be ashamed you do come across to a lot of people as childish and self-centered. Instead of attacking the employees that are hard work try making suggestions instead. If you suggestion is good then they may use it. Just don't attack that just makes you look bad.

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

I disagree with you on view of IMDB and Windows 11. Neither company needs to feel ashamed about them. I applaud both for their hard work on it.

Well, it's also because of my frustration. I just can't believe that people produce such bad products and don't even bother to fix it after almost a year, no matter how hard they worked on it. Does some random guy like me needs to be the one to point out these problems? Couldn't they figure it out for themselves?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I personally would be ashamed for producing such a website. But I guess I just have a way higher standard. And the solution is quite easy, IMDB pages should not load certain elements ''on the fly'' anymore but load them all in once. See link for more info, especially the part about asynchronous loading:

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-to-reduce-your-websites-page-speed

@Col_Needham​ 

You may want to read this page, especially the part about asynchronous loading and minifying CSS, JavaScript and HTML. I'm guessing this is mostly causing the problems on IMDB. 

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-to-reduce-your-websites-page-speed

I am a user from China and even in my country, it is very fast to browse IMDb.

Here is a problem with doing it all at once versus on the fly. I personally prefer on the fly because of the following problem with load all at once. Doing at at once the browser normally just has a blank screen until everything is downloaded. When a person has a slow computer or slow connection this cause people to think the page is not loading and the hit the refresh a couple of times. This then caused extra load on the servers to resend what it has already sent.

In my opinion it would be a bad mistake to go to that 

People views are different you say you have a higher standard however your standard to me would be a step back. It does not mean anyone is wrong or right.

@eak48096​ 

Perhaps you and other people have a different definition of what fast is. Like I said, even a delay of a couple of seconds is already too slow for me.

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. It's not like back in the days where it might take 10 seconds to fully download a website. I wonder if you did read the article, it's more about optimizing stuff so that it will feel like everything loads instantly without any delay. For example, Yahoo Finance also doesn't load the full page at once, because it would be way too big, yet it loads blazingly fast. 

https://finance.yahoo.com

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

Keep in mind that the old IMDB didn't have this problem at all. It all started with all of the JavaScript bloat when IMDB changed its design, that apparently isn't even optimized. I have a quite fast PC, and stuff like this shouldn't be happening.

And no, it would clearly not be a step back, after all it will become just as fast as the old IMDB, so seems like you misunderstood. BTW, seems like the quote function is broken, this is horrible forum software, in my view.

Like I said before I don't have the issue you described. Everything loads instantly to me. I do not see any type of bloat as you call it. And I did read the article which it does leave things out that has to be taken into consideration. What you feel will increase your speed and Fix your problem will cause issues for others. There will be people hit refresh because they don't see anything but a white page thinking something is wrong. It increase the loads on servers doing it that way. To me I don't think anything needs to be changed. Why make changes that will guarantee an increase in traffic requests. To me that will start slowing it down for others including yourself. Think of it this way which is faster. A two lane highway going 70 mph or a 4 lane highway going 55?  I can guarantee the 70mph is not going to be the speed at certain times of the day. It will get congested.  Your idea would be like the 70mph highway with the changes you want to make which would increase traffic requests. To me it's a big mistake to switch the way things are done.

Everyone is going to have different opinions and see things differently.  No one is wrong or right they are just different opinions. 

Just give you a little background. I am a movie producer now, however I was in the it department for over 30 years. I know over 20 different computer languages including Java cobol python etc. When there was no internet I was one of the coders that was writing code to link colleges and universities together which later came part of the internet.  

We only need for all of the text to load at once, images following shortly thereafter, videos last (without autoplay), like things are supposed to be.

Everything that has anything to do with any known Java engine is inherently bloated. I prefer to write programs in C99 (ol' C89 not being good quite enough), and in cases where absolutely necessary, C++. I've always been a big fan of Gnu/Linux, and to a lesser extent the Linux kernel in general, but I'm a slightly disappointed with the direction Android OS has been heading for the past decade, along with Torvalds' support of 6006L3 which once upon a time was the cat's meow. While most of the company's inventions have been great, many of those great developments (like WebP) have been largely useless. I'm sidetracked bringing all that up, since the bigger picture is perhaps too big to be concerned with for small matters on IMDb.

I'm going to put forth my best effort build a whole damned parallel economy, given all the nonsense that is going on today.

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

Like I said before I don't have the issue you described. Everything loads instantly to me. I do not see any type of bloat as you call it. What you feel will increase your speed and fix your problem will cause issues for others.

Let me ask you one thing. Did you have any problems with the old IMDB design in terms of loading speed? If not, then you don't make any sense. Because what I'm asking for is to get the same loading speed as the old IMDB. This would actually be better for older and slower machines and won't cause any issues at all.

Also, if you was active in IT, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand how these speed up methods exactly work. Like I said, it's about synchronously vs asynchronously loading of JavasScript (JS), see link and scroll to number 5. I think that's where the problem probably comes from, in addition to some other stuff.

Also, you say that everything loads instantly, so does that mean you never get to see the 3 loading dots, not even for a second? Because IMDB has litterally implemented these 3 dots to let users know that it's busy loading certain elements. So when you get to see this, it's already not instantly, even if you perceive it this way.

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/reduce-http-requests

Listen I have started this many times before on here. Both ways have issues. That is what you fail to understand. Switching will only move the problem and cause people to hot the refresh which will end up causing additional load on the server. I do not see your issue on my side. It all loads fast. And no I don't see any three dots anywhere on the page.i have a super fast computer and a fast connection. I can transfer a 4k 3hr movie 15gb file in less then 7 mins. So i will never ever see the issue you have. In my opinion Java should not be used on websites there are better ways to do things. Java was chosen here. Now there are several ways to do this. It does not make one right over the other. It is different thought and views on how things should work. Each have issues. Each have different unique speed and slowness areas. And switch the way you want to just trades one problem for another. I do know that switching from one to the other will in the long run cause more complaints and cause some people think the site is it working with the white page. If do a little search you can find articles out on the web that talks about the down fall of doing it the way you are suggesting. If you think you have an idea to improve imdb then make a suggestion through the right channels. However you and I debating this is not going to change anything by experience tells me the down falls of what you suggesting. You are refusing to consider that it has downfalls and only basing your view off a single article. I enjoy imdb the way it is now and do not this things should change. There are a few things i would love to have tweaked but it does not impact the site.

Also I have been around since the start. I remember having to send email requests into it and wait for an email back with the information because no browser existed at that time. I have seen it change over time since then. Now I probably have not seen every version of IMDB, However this is by far the best version of it. And this version will not be the last version. IMDB staff should be applaud for their achievement in making this great site.

@ZacGates_BDS​

Both ways have issues. That is what you fail to understand. Switching will only move the problem and cause people to hot the refresh which will end up causing additional load on the server. I do not see your issue on my side. I have a super fast computer and a fast connection. So i will never ever see the issue you have.

What you fail to understand that this is all about optimizing the site, so that it will load just as fast as the old IMDB design. And yes, we all know you have a fast computer, and this is exactly the problem, you're way too focused on yourself. What about people who do get to see this small and annoying loading delay?

And there's nothing wrong with JavaScript (which is different from Java) as long as it's used correctly. Most websites use it, and I have no issues with them, like for example Instagram. It also loads stuff on the fly but it all goes smoothly. 

And this is the right channel to make suggestions, not? It's you who keeps debating, while it seems that you don't even understand the issue, and how to fix it. Again, optimizing IMDB will not result in users having to wait for seconds before the website actually loads, in fact it will make it even faster, that's the whole point of this thread.

@Col_Needham​ 

@Navin2000  Thanks for the feedback. In the majority of similar cases any slowdowns are caused by ad blockers interfering with the experience. Please let us know whether this fixes the issue.

So Col Needham, will you take a look at this issue, or at least pass this info on to the IT department? Or perhaps you are from IT? Then I assume you understand what this problem is about. So it's not about the look of the website, it's purely about speed, which in fact could have been even worse, but it should become way better. And again, it's not related to adblockers, who sometimes indeed may cause problems, but not in this particular case.

Just because i used the short form java instead of typing the complete word does not mean we wete not talking about the same thing. I am sorry if that confused you.   Lastly i stand you need to suggest the right way. That means you do it in a non attacking way like you did here where you came off as childish and self centered.  When you attack no one is going to list.  When you suggest and give ideas then people might listen.   And you have to be open that your way is not the only way. And the suggestion may not be followed. Java (javascript) is not the best thing to use as an IT person. There are better way to do things.  Also your way does have issues it causes that you need to understand. You are only trading one problem for another.

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

It might seem like an attack on IMDB, but sometimes the truth must be said. And it also comes out of frustration, the old design didn't have this problem. But in the end, I'm trying to improve the IMDB website, let's focus on that.

And let's agree to disagree, because I have already said that my idea, which isn't anything new, won't cause any problems at all, since it's simply about optimizing this website, that's what you refuse or fail to understand. So any further discussion is pointless.

Also, it not about internet speed either, I have a quick 100Mbps download connection, just for the record. And Java and JavaScript are two different things, so you can't just use it as a short form, because it might indeed lead people to believe that you don't know the difference between the two.

When you start of saying imdb should be ashamed of itsekf. You are attacking.  Secondly it is your opinion and not the truth on your suggestion.  I know for afact that if implamented on imdb it will cause problem. And i pray they dont attmpt it.  And for over 29 years we have interchanged the short form when send messages quickly. So you and i disagree on that. 29 years of doing it is not going to get me to change just because some is crying about it.  In my opinion your way will cause more harm then  good.  And if imdbs it departmwnt is smart like i think they are. They wont implament your idea.  So dont be surprised and upset when /if it happens. Your idea is not a given law as you make it out to be. It has pros and cons just like all the other options. That is you failure to see and understand. Your idea is not law and may not be implamented because of the cons out way the pros.  I am not failing to see your view and am sayings the cons out way what it brings. 

Just to note, Java and JavaScript are essentially completely unrelated formal languages (the former a programming language and the latter a scripting language). They've only borrowed certain syntax conventions (related to logical operators, array indexing and control flow) from C++, causing source code for all of them to appear similar, e.g. the expression "for(i=0;i<0x20;i++)p[i]^=i%4==0?f(x[i],y[i],z[i]):f(y[i]-z[i],z[i]-x[i],x[i]-y[i])" is syntactically sound in C, C++, Java and JavaScript, but the variables would be declared as something other than a "var" in the programming languages, not to mention that JavaScript doesn't allow for addressing memory directly, so the concept of a pointer is not like usual; all very technical trivia for a whole separate world of topics. I know there must've been a reason why JavaScript was given its name, but I don't remember and find it hard to believe it might've been named after Java which was named after an island or at least the coffee beans that can be grown there.

Yes they are different ways on writing it and views in how it got uts nane. Noe when i wss working witht the colleges and university, and browsers just came out. We were using java scripts to activate jave sub routines on the main frame. Normally had something to do with enrollments.  Whrn ee had communicated back then  we referred to javasciot and java language as just java. When we were talking about the client end or browser side it was the script and it was the mainframe side it was the language. Yes they were 2 different things but they were being used in connection with the mainframe. Back then the mainframe was in cobol and java used to be a go between the browser and mainframe.   So it might have gotten its name because it bridged a gap between the browser and mainframes connecting to a java routine. A lot has changed since then. We dont use cobol any more. Javascript has changed to do otherthings and java all but died.  Javascript needs to be replaced now since there are better options now. My guess is that javascript got its name because it was developed to make that bridge or interface. 

@ZacGates_BDS​ 

Your idea is not a given law as you make it out to be. It has pros and cons just like all the other options. That is you failure to see and understand. 

Now you're just repeating yourself, and you still don't make any sense. Because by simply optimizing this site, you're not going to cause any problems. Any smart person would understand this.

That's why I asked if you had any problems with the old website, because it was quite speedy for me, even on old machines. This new design has caused this problem, so what do we need to do? We need to optimize it. But you don't have a problem on your speedy machine, so who cares right? And you're calling me self-centred?

About JavaScript (JS) vs Java, the fact that you have used the word Java when in fact you meant JS for the last 29 years, still doesn't make it right. In IT, it might even make you look dumb. Also, there is nothing wrong with JS, just about every website uses it. But it should be used in the right way, and IMDB clearly didn't. 

Keep on attacking it just shoes how childish and self center you are.   What a....

@Navin2000​ I am not from the IT department; my IMDb page and my activity page have details of my role here :-)

We understand your description of the problem, but for unknown reasons, what you are observing is not the common experience for most IMDb customers, nor is it consistent with our (extensive) measurements across billions of pageviews per month.  As noted previously, the usual root cause of such slowdowns are ad blockers or third party plugins making dubious claims to speed up the browsing experience while often achieving quite the opposite effect.  Since you have ruled such issues, we are out of options in terms of what else to suggest in your case, sorry.  Although there is still hope below ...

We are happy with the choices we have made with the new technology platform. We track a full suite of performance measurements, including LCP, and the pages are already faster for most customers compared to the old pages.  As we noted in one of the later posts around the launch of the new name pages:

The new name pages work across all device sizes; they are available in eight additional languages beyond English; they improve consistency with the rest of the site & our mobile apps; and they comply with the latest accessibility standards.  All this is to enable IMDb to better scale and grow our audience into the future. The full launch will enable a further enhancement in terms of even faster page loading speeds once we are able to activate client-side rendering.  We also have other enhancements in the pipeline which are now easier thanks to the new technology. 

A reminder to read the FAQ at https://help.imdb.com/article/issues/GMWASETVPLJYXEZE/ and do take the time to explore the significantly more powerful options available to sort and filter credits. In particular, see the "All topics" menu in the upper right of the page and the blue filter symbol under the "Credits" heading. All of the old features / sorts / links / subpages are still available.

Note the point emphasized in bold on client-side rendering which may address your issue once we are able to activate it.

Since rather than this being a plugin problem, it is feedback on the latest pages,  we will merge this thread into the main announcement thread shortly. 

I see that too - not seen it before. If you click on 'update filter selections' a dialog pops up. Make any change then change it back and the credits show up (at least when I do it).

I wonder if it's been fixed, because I see credits in the normal way on your page.

Or maybe it's browser dependent.

I'm using a Chromebook with Chrome 110.

@SamLaCroix​ Yes, this is still possible.  All of the links to other views are still available.  In this case, you would click the “All topics” link in the upper right of the name page to open the menu.  In the “Credits” column of the menu, click “by Year” and on the resulting page, use the “Refine” menu at the top — within the “You and This List” section there’s a checkbox labelled “In Watchlist” just as there was before. 

Hope this helps. 

@Col_Needham Thank you!  That's exactly what I wanted.

@devans00​ The credits are all still available — in cases where the person has a large number of credit sections, you may need to scroll along the category row to select it, as here on Lil Mama’s page:

Alternatively for speedy access to all credits, unselect the three default categories as covered in the FAQ -> https://help.imdb.com/article/issues/GMWASETVPLJYXEZE/

Hope this helps. 

@typomitch​ Thanks for the feedback.  Beyond the exception in the next paragraph, the name pages on the site have never included the ratings in the main filmography so nothing has been removed here.  It sounds like you might be looking for the "by Rating" view -- please click the "All topics" menu in the upper right of any name page, and then in the "Credits" column, select the "by Rating" link (or actually any link in that column includes both personal and overall ratings information).  For example, https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch/?sort=user_rating&explore=title_type&role=nm0428065 

We did briefly have a beta version of the name pages last summer which included the ratings in the filmography view, but this was apparently too much of a change for many people to handle and customers asked them to be removed.  Personally I loved this feature and I hope we can bring it back at some point in the future. 

@Col_Needham​ Thanks for your reply. I may be simply remembering the app version of the site and getting my wires crossed. I just like the ability to quickly glance at all an actors movie scores without further clicks, which does appear to be a mobile feature.