Michelle's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.6K Points

Monday, May 13th, 2024 5:32 PM

IMDb Redesigns Images Subpages

IMDb Redesigns Images Subpages

We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s redesigned Images subpages! These pages are meant to make your IMDb experience easier and more enjoyable by providing a modern, clean presentation of information with upgraded filtering support 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.

 

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

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

1 month ago

@Michelle , Employee 😁

Sample links??

.

Employee

 • 

16.9K Messages

 • 

307.6K Points

Hi @ACT_1​ -

You should be able to see the new Images display on any name or title page, for example:

Anne Hathaway

The Idea of You

I hope this helps!

(edited)

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@Michelle​ 😁

Do WE really need photos this big??
Perry Mason (TV Series)
The Case of the Golden Venom (1965)
Carole Wells photo bottom of ...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0673285/mediaindex/

12" x 14" ??

(on MeTV 9 AM Wed May 15)

.

(edited)

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

1 month ago

I noticed that the photos page has changed. It seems the list of the tags to the right has been removed and replaced with these awful filters at the top. Is anyone else frustrated by this unnecessary and clunky change? I'm not sure where else to post feedback or get others' opinions, so hopefully this is the place to do it. 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Photos

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@viivalabamf​ Thanks for the feedback. Please can you explain in more detail the issues which you are having?  

The new filters are much more powerful in that they are applied cumulatively, whereas before only one could be applied at once. For example, for Anne Hathaway you can filter by photo type, other people featured, and the specific event, as in:

to see -> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004266/mediaindex/?contentTypes=event&relatedNames=nm0413168&galleries=rg2802620928

We believe this is much more powerful and a huge improvement over the previous version. 

Hope this helps. 

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

1 month ago

Its awful, its less functional, its cumbersome, and there was nothing wrong with the other way.  #1 rule:   If it aint broke, don't fix it.    

While your at it roll back the the actors resume listing back to the way it was 5 years ago as well.

It amazed me how you make this "redesigns" and only make it more difficult to get information and think this is an improvement.    

And bring back the forums as well.    Fire whoever approves these "redesigns"   

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

1 month ago

look michelle, 

in its heyday IMDB.com   was the goto for all things movies and actors.   You could comment on them, have discussions about movies, and most importantly, it was a giant game of " 7 degrees of kevin bacon"   In the past 10 years, every change you folks have done and made it more clicks, and less information, and quite frankly more difficult to play in imdb.com   For the life of me I can't imagine who wanted these changes,    Stop messing with it.  this format may work on a phone, but on the pc, the old way was far more useful per page, and easy to get a lot of information quickly.  All these "redesigns" just are annoying.   

I remember a few years ago you redesigned the main page for a movie listing to a complete bloatware page.  It still a piece of junk.   At least I was able to change that setting so I could get the old style where you listed all the credits on a scrolling single page that loads up completely. 

While I'm at it, when I click on an actor and I click on show all there works why do I have to click at the bottom for "show more" ?   Its super annoying.  I have already told you I want to see the actors resume, that means the WHOLE THING. Its fricking ASCII data, takes up no bandwidth and since I've already committed to scrolling why are making me click for more?  It wasn't like that about 2 years ago.  Everything you guys do to "redesign"  just wastes my time and shows complete dis-respect for frequent users.    

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

the fact is I used to spend hours and hours per week in IMDB and enjoyed it.  When you had the forums it was probably over an hour a day.  The way it is now, I groan every time I go to IMDB as its just frustrating how you hide information.   If I use it 2 hours a week its a lot.   

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ Thanks for the feedback … 

In the past 10 years, every change you folks have done and made it more clicks, and less information

Outside of the message boards (which had become nothing more than a toxic waste dump) please provide examples of the supposed loss of information and we will be happy to look into this for you or provide an explanation.  In general we are adding data, data types, editorial content, and functionality as we make changes (although there are some exceptions due to low usage of old features and some things still in the development pipeline).  

From our annual letter to contributors last year at: https://contribute.imdb.com/czone/top_msg#2023

We have a responsibility to ensure the fruits of previous hard work and data contributions are accessible to a worldwide audience for the next 33 (and more) years. This does require the acceptance of change and an appreciation that the presentation of information online is always evolving. What once worked fine when technology was simpler, when expectations were lower, and when the content types IMDb covered were smaller, will not always work as well today. We are heading into the final stages of a multi-year rebuild of IMDb which will see us long into a future where: we grow data types to match the changing entertainment landscape; we cover more languages as entertainment becomes more globally accessible; we support more ways to discover then watch/listen/consume entertainment; and we are more consistent/accessible across a growing range of devices. It is an exciting challenge for us.

We now serve over 90% of web page views on our new modern, scalable technology service with our new responsive, localizable, and more accessible design (see last year’s letter for more on this). Across the year for the redesign we launched: the first batch of title subpages in January; news pages in March; ratings pages also in March, with additional country breakdowns and episode ratings-at-a-glance for TV shows; name subpages in April; additional title subpages in May; charts pages in June (along with more powerful filtering options on the same pages in October); the events page and many of the special sections pages in June; FAQ and episodes pages in July; Watchbar logos in October; and finally, advanced title search in November. Outside of the redesign we launched: name and title FAQ pages powered by Alexa; video playback improvements, including closed-caption support; Six Degrees game (in beta testing); and a data visualization challenge.

 As you can see from the history of these letters at https://contribute.imdb.com/czone/top_msg IMDb is constantly evolving and you can compare the size of the database 10 years ago via https://contribute.imdb.com/czone/top_msg#2014 with it today to hopefully appreciate how many of the old pages and old software simply do not scale to today’s numbers at https://www.imdb.com/pressroom/stats/

While I'm at it, when I click on an actor and I click on show all there works why do I have to click at the bottom for "show more" ?

You do not have to do this — instead please see the “All credits” option in the “All topics” menu in the upper right of every /name/ page.  For example:

clicking “All credits” takes you to what you are seeking without needing to scroll -> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428065/fullcredits/

Hope this helps. 

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

In an actor's bio photos, I can't filter my movie title anymore.  

also you will note: 

on the images page I can see 5 images where in the same space I believe I could see 30 thumbnails. This is just awful. Also the list of movies would be on the right, so I had a one button push to filter on the movie title instead of a pop-up.  Pop-up's suck.

2) sure the message boards had a lot of toxic waste, but there were also some great discussions.  I used to spend hours talking about movies on it and ignored the TW.  You guys just threw out the baby with the bath water.   I'm quite sure if you look your viewership took a massive hit when you removed them.   Just like yahoo.com did when they did the same thing.   

I quite understand the problem of expanding databases, (I'm in the business,) but The expanding data is far outpassed by the expanding speed and data storage capabilities.  That is not an excuse.  

Think about it.  You have been loosing marketshare for years to rotten tomatoes and other sources. Shoot 10 years ago rotten tomatoes was run out of a basemet.  Meanwhile ebay which has kept to its original formula and amazing search engine, Wins for the past 25 years.   

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ Thanks for the further feedback:

In an actor's bio photos, I can't filter my movie title anymore.  

This is a bug which we will report to the photos team. It appears to have been missed because there are some title specific galleries, but not all titles as in the old interface. Sorry for the confusion on our part and the inconvenience in the meantime. 

Also the list of movies would be on the right, so I had a one button push to filter on the movie title instead of a pop-up.

This has been extensively tested with customers and this is the preferred treatment, sorry; most people do not filter at all so the UI is less cluttered, and even on small screen sizes, the filter is available at the top vs. being too far out of view for those who do wish to use it. 

sure the message boards had a lot of toxic waste, but there were also some great discussions.  I used to spend hours talking about movies on it and ignored the TW.  You guys just threw out the baby with the bath water.   I'm quite sure if you look your viewership took a massive hit when you removed them.

On the contrary, viewership increased when we removed the boards; the boards were literally driving customers away from IMDb.  Also, the boards were barely used compared to the real functions of IMDb, yet consumed a massive amount of time and resources to operate, as well as generating staff turnover due to the problematic content. We were glad to be rid of the boards. 

You have been loosing marketshare for years

We are not sure what you mean here, sorry. IMDb is larger and more popular than ever before and continues to grow content, coverage, countries, devices, and customers.  We are not in business to replace other sites and services - well done to Rotton Tomatoes for growing in the areas which they cover - we are a separate service with different objectives.  The same applies to any other entertainment sites — the more, the merrier. 

Hope this helps. 

(edited)

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

you completely ignored my reasons for not liking the redesign of the photo section or the removal of the listing by movie in the actor's photo, the loss of 5/6 of the thumbnails per screen. 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ 

the removal of the listing by movie in the actor's photo

Please re-read the reply above again and see the opening paragraph — I have made the first sentence bold so the point is harder to miss. We will let the photo team know about this bug after the weekend. 

the loss of 5/6 of the thumbnails per screen

The reason for this is the same as all of the other changes — it tests better with customers in general, sorry. Overall the new design is based upon extensive customer feedback, research, and testing.

Specifically with the photo galleries: movies, TV, and most of what IMDb covers is visual media — the new size of the photos was chosen to improve the efficiency for customers browsing through the gallery as there’s now less of a need for people to click-through to the full size image, whereas before the thumbnails tested as too small and therefore frequently required an extra click/click back to see enough of the detail. 

Hope this helps.

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

I still don't see a reason that this can't be a setting in your profile to keep it as it is.   I have the setting to show the movie details the old way when you changed that years ago.  to 1/4 the info per screen back then . 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a

I still don't see a reason that this can't be a setting in your profile to keep it as it is.   I have the setting to show the movie details the old way when you changed that years ago.

The old software is being retired because it is no longer fit for purpose.  As each page is migrated, the corresponding old software powering it is removed and therefore the myriad of issues it created are eliminated. The reason the title reference view pages are still available as an option is because we have not yet completed the customer research on their replacement; they are last to be completed as they are among our least popular pages. 

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

1 month ago

(https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144884/mediaindex/)

Is IMDB trying to kill itself?   if you clicked on the pictures link in a movie listing, you used to get all the photos, and then on the right were a list of the actors in the movie and you could filter the photos section to just that actor.  Something very useful.  Why isnt' it there anymore?  why in blazes would imdb remove this feature?   That blue thing on the left is a sorry excuse for a replacement, and with actors, the blue thing doesn't let you pick by movie.   

It wasn't broke.  It was perfect.   Don't fix it.    How do get it to go back to the old way??        And stop messing with things 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled what happened to the filter in a movies to show only a specific actor?

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a 😀

is that this??

Michelle, Employee
Monday, May 13th, 2024
IMDb Redesigns Images Subpages
We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s redesigned Images subpages!
These pages are meant to make your IMDb experience easier and more enjoyable...
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-images-subpages/66424ea158dc7b70d83c90c9

.

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

@ACT_1​  are you out of your mind?????   it stinks!!!!  it is less functional, it wasn't broke you didn't need to do a thing. You are removed functionality, made single click info into multiple clicks and hidden.  In the past 10 years I can't think of a single "redesign" that has been an improvement, and this one is just another piece of garbage. 

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ 😀

Add your ... comments to Michelle, Employee??

(This may get merged with that)

.

151 Messages

 • 

2.4K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ Well if you don't like it. Then go to another site like The rotten tomato. As it seem to fit the launges thar you are using

(edited)

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​  Thanks for the feedback … 

if you clicked on the pictures link in a movie listing, you used to get all the photos, and then on the right were a list of the actors in the movie and you could filter the photos section to just that actor.  Something very useful.  Why isnt' it there anymore?

All of the filters are there as before, just click the filter symbol on the left at the top of the gallery.  In your The Final Destination example, this produces:

 We have actually added to the functionality here as it is now possible to filter by multiple people and facets at the same time. Please see the example shown further up the thread at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-images-subpages/66424ea158dc7b70d83c90c9?commentId=664300656dc852698ebac1d1&replyId=6643035f6dc852698ebac2f9

Hope this helps. 

262 Messages

 • 

8.2K Points

1 month ago

I can appreciate the galleries having larger preview images. But sorting between stills/posters/celebrities was simpler before.

And this feels like a format too fit for a cellphone rather than a desktop. There should be a way to balance formats for both devices. 

2 Messages

 • 

76 Points

1 month ago

I am another user who feels the images page redesign is less useful than the older design. My primary issue is the old gallery main page had a very convenient grid of 48 (?) thumbnails that were very easy and fast to navigate through, particularly when the gallery has a large number of photos, whereas the new design only allows scrolling through the whole gallery, inconvenient for a large gallery, or filtering, not ideal if you're just browsing. The gallery icon is even suggestive of a grid. I can understand if the new design is possibly better for mobile (maybe) but I would appreciate it if there was some way to get to the previous grid view.

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.8K Points

29 days ago

Last year you changed the "photos" links on title and name pages to link to the first image rather than the gallery (mentioned here, though there was at least one other post). I thought the intention might be to bypass the gallery in the old design. Now that the subpage is redesigned, will you reconsider those links?

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@Peter_pbn​ No, sorry (because it tested significantly better).  As noted in the old thread to which you linked, you can still go directly to the gallery view via the “Photos” link in the “All topics” menus on both the name and title pages. 

2 Messages

 • 

76 Points

@Col_Needham  It's hard to guess the nature of your testing cohort, but the suggestion that functionality is improved by using the small "All topics" menu (which I frankly had never seen before) to then select "Photos" is in any way easier or more intuitive than simply clicking on the bold "Photos" link directly above the images themselves to get to the gallery doesn't make any sense.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.8K Points

@Col_Needham​ 

On title pages, links showing the number of videos go to a video gallery, but links showing the number of photos go to the first image rather than the photo gallery. This is inconsistent.

If I want to view the first images I can click those images. When I click the text link which mentions the full number of photos, I would probably like to see additional photos.

We also need to get to the subpage to use the "Add photo" feature, I believe.

I have used the menu link countless times in the last six months, but I still don't see any improvement for users here.

(edited)

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

@Justanotheruser_1138​    for the past 20 years somehow they manage to test against people who seem to like these hieroglyphics instead of the simple characters "photos" as a clickable link.  I can't imagine how anyone likes these things over just the word.   

151 Messages

 • 

2.4K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ Why are you talking in generall terms and not from the point that you don't like The changes on the site?

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

@Jimmi1996​ follow the thread.   then you will know why. You are commenting on the last message of a 20+ comment conversation. 

151 Messages

 • 

2.4K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ I can read! Of course I respond to the last comment. You don't have to answer  if you don't like to. I just asked a simpel question.

Have a great day

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

@Jimmi1996​ did I say anything about you not being able to read?  No.  I was simply trying to point out the context you were missing to my statement. You seem very defensive, when all I did was answer your simple question.

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

25 days ago

A quick update ... the title filters have been restored on the name galleries. For example, Felicity Jones / still frames / Rogue One (2016) -> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428065/mediaindex/?contentTypes=still_frame&relatedTitles=tt3748528 

There are still two smaller issues still in progress ... the "&relatedTitles" parameter in the URL is not set when you update the title filters, so the links are cannot yet be easily saved / bookmarked.  We are also investigating why a small number of photos are not included in the filters. 

 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

Another update here — the title filters are now set in the URL, so filtered views by title can now be bookmarked / favourited / etc.  The usual example -> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0428065/mediaindex/?contentTypes=still_frame&relatedTitles=tt3748528

The photo count discrepancy mentioned above is covered by the different rules as to which photos appear in name vs. title galleries.    

4 Messages

 • 

80 Points

23 days ago

I often use the Photos section of an actor's page to find out where I've seen them before. IMDB has recently changed the layout a couple times for the worse (for me anyway).

First, a couple months ago they changed it so that when you clicked on the "Photos" section it gets you to the actor's first photo. It used to go to a grid of some number of photos, plus a link to go to "next page". Going to the first photo isn't really useful, unless the actor only has a couple photos. I'm not going to scroll through 150 photos if the actor is popular. So I go to the grid button, which is easy enough, but seems dumb. Bringing back the grid view as the first view is more useful.

In the most recent change, going to that grid view brings up a single page of a complete collection of larger pictures. That's more scrolling, but not horrible. What I miss from the previous format is the info I would get when hovering the cursor over each picture. It would pop up the where that photo came from and the date. I found that pretty useful and miss it.

Anyway, that's my "feedback" to the IMDB powers that be. They don't seem to have another vehicle for feedback on their website itself.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Does anyone else dislike the new IMDB web version of the Photos section?

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@Irony58 😀

Joined May 31st, 2024

Read this??

Michelle, Employee
Monday, May 13th, 2024
IMDb Redesigns Images Subpages
We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s redesigned Images subpages! 
Photos...

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-images-subpages/66424ea158dc7b70d83c90c9

Your message may get merged with that

🙄

.

4 Messages

 • 

80 Points

Thanks. That link shows the "improvements" I was talking about. The new layout isn't so bad, and I think when clicking on the link to that sub-page, it should go directly to that layout and not to the first picture in the layout. 

Also, that link you provided says, "providing a modern, clean presentation of information", but it actually provides less information than before. All it is is a collection of photos, which I don't feel is really "information". The previous layout gave me info on each picture by only placing my cursor over the picture.

The bottom line is I'm not thrilled with this new layout.

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@Irony58​ 

The previous layout gave me info on each picture by only placing my cursor over the picture.

Thanks for the feedback.  We will pass this along to the photos team. 

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@Col_Needham​ 😎

Someone posted a title with 7,000 ? photos
I posted comments yesterday - gone today

New samples

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/mediaindex/

938 photos 

Click on photo to open another photo to read text

- - -

Wayback Machine

Dec 4 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20201204050012/https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/mediaindex/

Pages of photos

1-48 of 837 photos

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »
Mouse over photos for text
and
Refine All Photos By Person!!

Mark Hamill (174)
Daisy Ridley (157)

John Boyega (102)

- - -

IMDb is spending a lot of time redoing the Photos on many of the

32,500,000 Titles pages
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32500000/

16,195,000 Name pages
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm16195000/

and nobody likes it??

https://www.imdb.com/pressroom/stats/

As of March 2024
Titles: 19,048,750
Titles w/ Primary Image: 2,768,378

Names: 13,383,167
Names w/ Headshot: 533,475

- - -

There are a lot of groups of gallery photos

Sample

https://www.imdb.com/gallery/rg1859820288

Using the OLD (better) display

Do not change these

You can find others...

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdb-poll/all-imdb-poll-board-suggestions-please-contribute/63172f93ca30894e7c543e75?commentId=65254bfee82d554bfb13ef42

.

(edited)

Champion

 • 

6.5K Messages

 • 

115.6K Points

22 days ago

In the last days I have got a new format in the photo galleries, with the hated infinite scrolling and with photos shown at different sizes making it harder to go through all images.

I suppose this is another mobile friendly change that destroys the desktop experience, but in any case I'll ask, is there any way to see the galleries in a user friendly square grid as before?

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New photo gallery display

8.1K Messages

 • 

172.1K Points

@Pencho15 😀

Read this??

Michelle, Employee
Monday, May 13th, 2024
IMDb Redesigns Images Subpages
We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s redesigned Images subpages! 
Photos...

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-images-subpages/66424ea158dc7b70d83c90c9

Your message may get merged with that

🙄

.

Champion

 • 

6.5K Messages

 • 

115.6K Points

@ACT_1​ Thanks, I had missed that, I didn't start seeing this new format until this week. Another terrible change, but I have learned every recent "improvement" is making thigs worst.

Follow the IMDb Polls in Facebook and Twitter

133 Messages

 • 

1.8K Points

20 days ago

So now, instead of a succession of 48 equal thumbnails per page, we have all the images in any gallery, regardless of their quantity, lumped together in one single page and shown in different sizes and configurations.

The problem: the classification of the images is gone (posters, publicity, product/box art, still frames, etc.) and I want it back.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New image gallery layout
Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New image gallery layout

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@Tonio_Fraga

The problem: the classification of the images is gone (posters, publicity, product/box art, still frames, etc.) and I want it back.

To filter the images, please click on the blue filter arrow in the upper left of the page (see further up this thread for screengrabs). 

Hope this helps. 

133 Messages

 • 

1.8K Points

@Col_Needham​ Thanks, after I made my comment I discovered the arrow-button and I was editing my comment when I received the notification of your reply, so IMO:

I still prefer the old way, when both things (image classification and name-tags) were displayed on the right column of the page. Much more easy to get to, and hard to miss. I'd like to see a return to that, please.

"Like all workaholics, I am profoundly lazy." --Aki Kaurismäki

Champion

 • 

14K Messages

 • 

325.8K Points

18 days ago

As you say, it is possible to filter by more than one person (or title), but it isn't very clear whether it is OR or AND.

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

2 Messages

 • 

104 Points

13 days ago

I dislike, like practically all previous Imdb redesigns (the most recent one being the way Export works).

The new gallery features infinite scroll, no pagination, too-large images...

(edited)

Champion

 • 

6.5K Messages

 • 

115.6K Points

10 days ago

It has become a torture to try to find an image if it is anywhere above the 100 number, please bring pagination back. 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@Pencho15​ Is this after applying the appropriate filters?  The filter can help you quickly locate specific images across a variety of criteria. 

Champion

 • 

6.5K Messages

 • 

115.6K Points

@Col_Needham​ Sometimes the filters won't help. For example, I might be looking for an image not of a particular person but of something specific like a car chase, a sunset, some character doing an specific action but caring about the action, not the person portraying it (this is something we do when making image list for polls).

Before I could just look at the thumbnails and quickly find of there was something useful before moving to another page, with the infinite scrolling and the different sizes of images that I am unable to opt out from I have to scroll a lot and get a lot less visual information than before on each screen, so finding this things that may be hidden in the farther part of the images is tiresome and annoying.

TV series may have thousands of images, scrolling all to try to find something is incredibly hard and it is much slower than with pagination, not mentioning that opening an image and closing it forces you to start back at the beginning and scroll all the way back to where you were before (Yes, I know you can open the image in a different tag, I often do, but when you forget and just click is terrible)

Follow the IMDb Polls in Facebook and Twitter

19 Messages

 • 

520 Points

@Pencho15​   yes!!!!   this is exactly the issues that have come up!!!  thank you!   I couldn't figure out why the new layout is so cumbersome, but you are exactly explaining what I have been so frustrated with. 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.2K Points

@Pencho15​ Thanks for the feedback.  We will pass this along to the photos team.