Michelle's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

16.8K Messages

 • 

306.5K 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

8K Messages

 • 

171K Points

7 days ago

@Michelle , Employee 😁

Sample links??

.

Employee

 • 

16.8K Messages

 • 

306.5K 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)

8K Messages

 • 

171K 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

6 days 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

 • 

6.9K Messages

 • 

173.7K 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. 

14 Messages

 • 

462 Points

4 days 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"   

14 Messages

 • 

462 Points

4 days 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.    

14 Messages

 • 

462 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

 • 

6.9K Messages

 • 

173.7K 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. 

14 Messages

 • 

462 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

 • 

6.9K Messages

 • 

173.7K 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)

14 Messages

 • 

462 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

 • 

6.9K Messages

 • 

173.7K 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.

14 Messages

 • 

462 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 . 

14 Messages

 • 

462 Points

4 days 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?

8K Messages

 • 

171K 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

.

14 Messages

 • 

462 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. 

8K Messages

 • 

171K Points

@jonathan_leslie_4t7ncb7b0ng5a​ 😀

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

(This may get merged with that)

.

116 Messages

 • 

1.9K 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

 • 

6.9K Messages

 • 

173.7K 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. 

14 Messages

 • 

462 Points

you added functionality that I never wanted still don't want and sacrificed (for no reason,) the functionality that I used all the time.  I USED the thumbnails to quickly scan the photos.  I used the quick link to the movie title on the right to get more images of the actor from that same movie.  

260 Messages

 • 

8.2K Points

4 days 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. 

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

15 hours 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.