IMDb Redesigns Title Reference View

It still says "TV Movie", "TV Series", etc., but apparently "Movie" has been omitted.

Yes - in alignment with the rest of the site, the absence of a title type at the top of the page means it is a Movie.

"This comment was created from this reply" Why were unproblematic comments removed? I thank you Dylan for trying to keep the conversation focused and levelheaded, but I implore you not to suppress perfectly civil feedback while trying to do so. As I previously replied to this post: What we have objected to here is not the old layout's underlying technology needing to be retired, but rather the essential functionality and clarity it offered having been lost as opposed to thoughtfully carried over. The compactness of reference view can easily be built atop new, maintainable, responsive technology.

This is the point that I have tried to make. Changing the back-end code and changing the front-end user-interface do not *have* to go hand in hand. You could, if you wanted to meet the needs and requests of your customers, have completely new code which generates identical HTML to what the old code did, or you could change the HTML to integrate CSS style sheets which makes the page look the same as the old code did. Or, if you are IMDB development, you could generate pages that look completely different and peddle the lie that the change in appearance is *necessary* because you have changed the back-end code.

@bordelet Sorry, that was me cleaning-up the thread since the customer was derailing the conversation after it became clear later in the thread that they should not be using reference view. I did not spot that you had replied to that person’s comments instead of replying to Michelle’s post. Once a reply is removed, any replies to it are also deleted, sorry. Dylan will be online tomorrow and throughout the week to reply to your points.

Hi @bordelet. We worked hard to match the compactness of the old page as closely as possible with the new technology, while ensuring that the site is still maintainable. We have also responded to feedback on these threads with three changes to make it more compact: Reduced headings by 4 points, removed padding, and reduced the height of rows in the company sections. We are also exploring further ways to make the page more compact.

Hi @Frontrunner1970. The old page was built on outdated and unmaintainable technology which we needed to retire, so there will be no option to switch back to it. However, we worked hard to match the compactness of the old page with the new technology. We have also listened to and acted on feedback, with three changes to make this new page more compact: We reduced headings by 4 points, removed padding, and reduced the height of rows in the company sections. We are also exploring further ways to make the new page more compact.

I agree 100 percent.

Sorry Dylan. In the nicest possible way, you have not answered Frontrunner1970's question - and that of a lot of other people. So I'll ask it again - maybe one day I'll get a straight answer. Why is it that when you had to replace the old code with the new code (I fully support your reasons for doing that) you were not able to produce a web page layout which more closely matches that produced by the old code? Changing the back-end code does not necessarily mean that the front-end UI changes. Someone seems to have decided to change the UI at the same time. But why would they do that without the buy-in of the users?

Hi martin_695862 When we built this new page, we had to start from scratch given it had to be built on entirely new technology. That meant taking new components that receive data published by our new systems, and arranging them on the new page in a way that most closely resembled the old page. By default, these new components inherited the same new design standards as the other pages that IMDb has launched lately. There was no way to simply copy and paste the entire exact same design as the old page, over to all the new components. For the dense "Hero" section at the top of the page, we had to stitch together individual data types into an arrangement that replicated the old reference view page as closely as possible. We then made further refinements to some of the new components to more closely replicate the old page, such as removing a limit on the number of companies that were shown within each section upon page load. We have also made a number of refinements since, based on feedback on the Beta thread as well as this one. This includes: Switching interests back to genres, shrinking the headings by 4 points, completely removing padding around sections, and reducing the height of rows in the company sections. We are also continuing to listen to feedback on this thread and explore further solutions.

Trivia is linked in the first section of the menu ("Popular"), is it not?

Thanks for raising this issue - I will raise it with the team

Hi @Peter_pbn. The section-specific Edit links are back for the company sections. Thanks again for raising it!

Please see @Dylan’s reply above on this at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-title-reference-view/6847408e13f03f4b7e70a5de?commentId=684fae9da9208e3b5d5b05ed&replyId=684ff4b84c55001a0cb823c6 The layout is designed to be as close as practically possible to the previous version so please can you give examples of information which is now hidden behind multiple clicks? We believe we have covered everything, but you may have found some corner cases which we would be happy to investigate once we have specific examples from you. Please include example URLs of title pages which require the extra clicks, thanks.

I've been reviewing all of your responses, and I must say I find them quite disappointing. It feels as though you don't fully understand the issues we're facing and are treating us dismissively. If this is how Amazon manages things, then there’s little we can do to influence the situation. After more than a decade of support, I've decided to step back from supporting IMDb.

DiabolicKiller - I'm not ready *yet* to stop contributing to IMDB, but I am getting very demoralised. IMDB development (or the requirements-specification team who instruct them) seem to have an inverse-Midas-touch: all the golden things that they touch turn to sh1t. ;-) OK, maybe that's a bit extreme but it does seem that every them the trumpet a new change with "we are excited to announce", it means that a tried-and-trusted page design will get worse. Someone somewhere is woefully out of touch with what we want. I realise that the users who submit and maintain IMDB data are a small proportion of the overall punters who use IMDB, but we are a very important part of the integrity of IMDB's data. Please, please, please will you consult us on proposed changes *BEFORE* you cut any code? Produce draft page designs and let us say what we do and don't like. I feel that too many changes in IMDB are preseented to us as a fait accompli, when it is too late to make changes. I, for one, LOATHE and DETEST change - unless it is clearly and visibly change for the better *from my point of view*. Obviously code becomes harder and harder to maintain as techology moves on. I expect you to update it, maybe radically rewrite it. But I expect, to the best of your abilities, that process should be invisible to me. "Don't change anything unless you can improve it" is a good motto in life. My feeling of IMDB is that they make too many gratuitous and ill-thought-out changes which make life for me and fellow data-submitters gradually worse and worse. I dare you! Prove me wrong. Consult me beforehand and let me help steer what you do.

@klh11 It sounds like you have accidentally opted-in to the title reference view which is an advanced view aimed at high-volume data contributors. To switch back to the standard IMDb title pages, please visit https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general/ and uncheck the option labelled “Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)” and press the “Submit” button. For more information on IMDb’s site settings, please see https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/site-preferences/GDL9NWJRKWRH5L6K Hope this helps.

Hi Devin1405 - The page seems to be behaving as intended here. If you are in the US, then we show the US runtime at the top of the page. This is also inline with the title's main page, which also shows 1h 27m at the top.

Interesting. I was not previously aware of this. Thank you.

Hi @xianjiro. Yes, all of the title's runtimes should be listed on its Tech Specs subpage.

@tld87 Thanks for the continued feedback; just in case you missed this earlier, @dylan gave an update earlier in the week at https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/imdb-redesigns-title-reference-view/6847408e13f03f4b7e70a5de?commentId=684fae9da9208e3b5d5b05ed&replyId=68546025c27c0531c9ed1456 Things are still in-progress in terms of refinements — we agree that the headings are still too large, despite the reductions. Since the design components are shared across the site, it takes a little bit of extra coordination to ensure that any heading size reductions on title reference view do do not “break” anything elsewhere on the site. Thanks for your patience while this and other issues are being handled.

Thank you for listening to the feedback, it's nice to see we're not going unheard I will say however I feel this is the lesser of the two solutions. I personally feel it would've been better to revert to how it was before the overhaul, having the full director/writers below cast with the rest of the crew sections. Given that now so much more space is taken up by the formatting and blown up size of everything, having the smaller, sleeker summary view for director and writer seems like a better fit. They're usually only a couple names and so would slot in perfectly there, however when you have a whole list of accredited writers/creators, it feels like a lot of bloat having to scroll through to get to cast. And even if it's only a one name per section, the headers and wrapping/border are still taking up space on the 'front' page that could be used to bring more information up with cast. And the only reason nobody would've complained with the old view about repeat information with having top cast in tech specs and then cast immediately after is that it barely took any space, it was still compact and had so much information present despite it being there. Still, I know it's a work in progress, and you said you're still working on making everything smaller so hopefully it'll all work out in the end

100% agree, you sum it up perfectly.

Thanks Martin - we have passed these on to our design team.