Taylor's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

33.3K Points

Tue, May 18, 2021 6:23 PM

INTRODUCING: Updated IMDb.com Title page experience

INTRODUCING: Updated IMDb.com Title page experience

We are excited to announce the launch of IMDb’s newly refreshed movie and TV show pages! The renewed page is meant to make your IMDb experience easy and enjoyable, and its design represents the diverse interests of global entertainment fans. The refresh reflects IMDb customer feedback and research designed to enhance entertainment content discovery and navigation.

Please note, we are gradually launching the new design to a selection of IMDb customers. If you do not yet see the design, we expect to make it broadly available in the weeks ahead. Thank you for using IMDb!

For more information, check out this Help article.

Responses

Geodacius

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

12 d ago

The designers of IMDb need to think about what the classic actors would have wanted.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

How does anybody know what class actors would have wanted?

Geodacius

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

Probably recognition for the work that they have done.

11 Messages

 • 

380 Points

12 d ago

Terrible, brainless, wildly inefficient, far too much scrolling. Tell me this was not the work of a millennial. I double dare you. It is faster to do a Find for trivia than it is to scroll to it. Did you people not test this thing? Who cared about cure large round photos of actors? 

I cannot believe that any adults were involved in this design. It is now too much of a chore to find things, so expect a drop in submissions across the board. Seriously. Wait a couple of months and the run the numbers. 

This is typical of millennial thinking. All flash and no common sense whatsoever.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

Maybe so, but it kind of has "gen X trying to pander to gen Z" written all over it. The design is so derivative in many ways, like some kind of stock code library to which only Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Take 2 Interactive and few others have access was used. What are they going to do when gen Z outgrows the nonsense? Haha.

schitlipz

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

Before we blame our youth, perhaps the old farts need a good finger-wagging.  This new design and its feedback are probably a kick in the butt to whoever spearheaded it.

We can only speculate as to the "why" or "how" unless it is told forthright.  I think Colin said something about the technology, but I don't know what he was talking about.

Nonetheless, there are good kids out there that don't need or deserve any blame, who are just trying to earn a buck and start their lives.  They have enough anxieties in this modern world, with automated kiosks and robots taking many traditional starter jobs.

The kids are fine.  Mostly.  If anything, they are the ones being misguided by media culture, rather than them misguiding it.

Alrighty then!  Hey @Col, how about them roll-ups?  Too many names.  Nobody needs to know the name of the floor sweeper.

Geodacius

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

I wouldn't go blaming the younger generations, plenty of them have a good education and a decent amount of wisdom passed down to them from their parents.  This is clearly the work of bureaucrats looking to keep their jobs by making work where there was no reason to work in the first place.  It happens all the time!

schitlipz

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

On the other hand, with the hospitality industry in shambles, I can imagine some young workers finding a place, perhaps through nepotism, where they shouldn't be.  Undeserved power usually results in havoc.  Maybe that's why we're not getting any straight answers.  Might be the boss' kid.

Oh dear!  Now I'm beginning to play into the imagination game.  It's not so great to speculate.

6 Messages

 • 

132 Points

Besides the vanishing likelyhood that a tributary of Amazon the size of IMDb is going to let the work experience trainee redesign the website regardless of who their parent is, I think your post might be a step too far.

No matter how much we may dislike the new site, it doesn't belong to us, and the actual owners don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. Lets try and keep it civil. ( And I still think the new site sucks. )

schitlipz

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

@roomtone Who's post went too far?  Civility, what's that?  And as for not being answerable to the consumers... bwahahaha!  I'm outta here, but first:

The bottom line is the users (shades of Tron).  Without them they get no ad revenue, and a lot of their assets are generated by these good people here.  The hilarious movie reviews are the only reason IMDb got high usage out of me, until my visits bottomed out with the transformation to the layout.

They might not want to answer to their users.  I assume that's why they have no feedback form on their main site and instead outsourced it to the person running this board.  That's pretty weak in itself.

Nobody here was born yesterday.  Speaking of which, it's time I take my email notifications off.  Everybody take care and enjoy the future.  Maybe we'll cross paths again.  It's a small world.

[Just figured to me that the MS bing search engine gives the movie ratings of both IMDb and Tomatoes.  Thought I'd share.]

2 Messages

 • 

92 Points

11 d ago

The new font and typeface sizes are ridiculously huge and clunky. There needs to be an option to revert to the "classic" style layout. 

If the whole site was in this style then I guess I could change the browser zoom setting for the site, but doing that to make the title page usable just makes everything else unreadably small. 

No idea if you tested this on a deskop/laptop device, but it's not working for me!

(Windows 10, Chrome, 1920x1080 screen resolution)

6 Messages

 • 

114 Points

I can pretty much guarantee they tested it on desktop. Then they looked at their user stats, decided that the 10% of desktop users didn't matter, and implemented it anyway.

1 Message

 • 

80 Points

11 d ago

I hate it! Not navigable. Exactly what a website shouldn't be like.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

11 d ago

Much less user friendly, harder to find information, one wonders what the rationale behind the change was, exactly how you make more money out of creating a worse user experience. Whoever created the original page should be given their job back and a raise.

9 Messages

 • 

182 Points

10 d ago

Is there any way to change it back? Everything is so spaced out. Why do companies keep doing this? It looks like a website for children. It sucks. Is there a petition to change it back?

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

Prettier isn't always better.  I'd rather have reliable functionality, than glitz and glam.

9 Messages

 • 

202 Points

10 d ago

Well you know I like the new version, I've been here for a pretty long time, and there's been a lot of changes since then, but even though I like the new, I would also like the ability to change colors of the site, also for those who prefer the old version may have that availability to change to the old.

9 Messages

 • 

202 Points

And yes it's a bit too large, because I use chrome I always have to zoom it down.

2 Messages

 • 

72 Points

9 d ago

This new design is absolutely atrocious. Cluttered, ugly and difficult to use. Please go back to the old design and admit that this was a HUGE mistake.

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

9 d ago

The new site looks "nicer".  But it's pretty terrible.  It's much slower than the old one.  Also, whenever I click on the User Reviews, it ALWAYS takes me to the trailer.  I have to hit back, and click on User Reviews again for it to actually take me the Reviews page.  Consistent like that.  Clicking on any other link also takes anywhere from 10 to 20 seconds.  We all know in computer and high speed internet standards, that's like waiting hours in real time.  The site is very glitchy.  Wonder if there is a way to go back to the old one.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled New Site issues

Employee

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K Points

@eric72  Thanks for the feedback. We have not had other reports of the trailer / review issue.  Please can you provide more details as to how you are accessing IMDb  -- including your system, browser version and country?

Please also see https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/why-is-imdb-displaying-differently-on-my-browser/GF2ZAR69V859XLHF and note the point on ad blockers. 

Does IMDb behave the same way on other browsers on the same machine? 

Only the title pages have been updated so if clicking links to ther pages is taking longer this is unrelated to the design change. 

Hope this helps. 

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

I'm running on Mac OS 10.11.x.  I don't update unless I absolutely need to.  Also find that Updating OS rarely fixes issues I have.  More often than I'd like, it causes more issues.   Tried on Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.  All latest versions.  If there is a trailer attached, when I hit User Review, it takes me to the trailer page.  On all of them.  And IMDB loads a lot slower now on all three, since it updated it's self.  Guess all the "fancy" stuff, is just too data heavy.  The pages themselves look different now.  How does it not relate to the "design change"? lol

I believe it's the design.  This new look was a beta version some time back.  We had the option to try it out and opt out.  I quickly reverted back to original look.  Except for the trailer/review link issue, for the very same reasons why I wish I could go back to the old version now. lol  Guess the same slow issues from the beta version were never fixed in this final version.

Employee

 • 

4.3K Messages

 • 

142.6K Points

@eric72  Thanks for the details.  Can you hover your mouse over the User Reviews link on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9620292/ and let us know the link destination shown before you click and the trailer starts instead? Also, once you click the link, please can you share the URL of the page on which you land with the trailer playing?

Are you using the User Reviews link in the upper right of the page; or the one on the "All Topics" menu or are you using the "User Reviews >" heading above the featured review? Do all three of them behave this way? 

We are a little lost as to how a static link to the user reviews can be causing the trailer to play instead, sorry. 

Thanks.

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

Ha!  Will you look at that.  I searched a movie before I saw your email.  And noticed that it DIDN'T take me to the trailer when I clicked on the User Reviews Link.  Tried another movie, and no trailer.  So it looks like someone fixed it, or it fixed itself. lol  Attached, in red outline, is the link I was clicking on that kept bringing up the trailer.

I tried the link you provided, and no trailer re-direct with that one as well.  However, the page took about 20 seconds to load, before I can roll over the User Review Link to see what the address was (it was a review page address).  But 20 seconds is a pretty long time for a page to load.  The page is bloated.  That's what's causing the slow load times.  But I'm glad the trailer issue has stopped.  It was really annoying.

Just a note, I also use the IMDB app on my iPhone and iPad, and they load very quickly.  I have not run into any issues with the mobile app.  Maybe it's fair to say, that you guys have put more attention to the mobile app, than the desktop website.  The website loads so slow (even on my devices using a browser), that I made a separate bookmark, that by-passes the homepage, just so I can do a quick search.  And not have to wait for the homepage to finish loading.  However, the individual movie pages still load as slow as the homepage on the desktop.  That goes for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.  My internet connection is fast for most of the sites I visit.  IMDB is just very slow to load.

15 Messages

 • 

248 Points

On my end it's equally slow, either on desktop or tablet. There is a very simple explanation for that phenomenon. It's called pictures and videos! Before the update the pictures were smaller and maybe less, but it had also an enormous loading time, which is why I often tapped on a link while the page was still loading, but the layout shiftet and another link was accidentally tapped. Doh!

You have the link to photos next to the trailer. Why do you have to have another line for thumbnails of them?! Also, one of the main waiting things is the ratings plug-in or script or whateva, not to mention the felt minute long waiting for the start page...

I must say, I like the layout on the desktop version, just make the videos disappear and the pictures smaller and show less pictures! It's often frustrating.

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

Guess I spoke to soon.  Clicked on this link, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8740898/.  Then as soon as the Review link appeared, I clicked on it.  The address did say it was going to the Review page.  But instead, the trailer page came up.  Hit the back button, then the User Reviews link again.  The second time, as before, took me to the correct page.

I'm trying to attach a screen recording of what happens.  It will be more a proof that something is wrong with the IMDB site, since it upgraded to the latest version.  But it's only giving me the option to add a video link.  And not an actual mp4 file.  How do I attach a video file to this post?

(edited)

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

Actually, the more likely culprit for the slowness of loading the page is the sheer amount of JavaScript routines and Cascading Style Sheet definitions that the Web browser is expected to process. To try to verify this, simply disable images and see if the pages load any faster, then remember re-enable them once the "test" is no longer a thing of interest.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

...or disable JavaScript instead, and take note of how considerably faster pages load, regardless of how many images are sourced into them.

14 Messages

 • 

394 Points

So this is quite odd.  I have two Mac Pros, same model, same setup and settings.  One is just used for day to day, the other is for work.  On the day to day, the pages are coming up as the new IMDB pages. Slow and with issues.  I open the same link on the other work Mac Pro, with the same version of Chrome, and it comes up as the old IMDB page set up.  Loads much faster, and no Review/Trailer issue.

I wonder how IMDB can explain that.  lol

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

248 Points

@eric72 Try to upload the video to a cloud service or your own home page server and publish the link. - And the different loading times may have to do with the processor power and memory of your computer.

@jeorj_euler You may be right, but how can I disable images and scripts in the android app? Either way, the desktop version is slower than before with the old layout. In Edge I still have the old version - counted to 3 or 4 from the first appearing of content until the page finally loaded everything. With the new layout it takes the double amount of time! Mainly I have to wait for the ratings, showtimes and watchlist scripts and video/photos thumbnails.

(edited)

20 Messages

 • 

360 Points

@eric72 same here!!!! 
i have no idea why!  i was so happy i didn't wanna spoil it by saying something...  

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

Good point. I confess that I just about don't ever use smartphones, and if I did, then I would probably reject utilization of most ecosystem-specific apps in favor of a web browser app (more of a general purpose computer program). I always prefer tools that I can customize.

43 Messages

 • 

1.1K Points

9 d ago

Stop fixing things that aren't broken.

7.9K Messages

 • 

181.3K Points

That's a funny analogy that pretty much doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on software, seeing as how software is incapable of experiencing wear and tear, or things like rusting, corrosion, burnout, with the need for lubrication or component replacement. Unfortunately, sometimes software can become unsatisfactory over time, as the inability to add new features to enhance comfort, accessibility, functionality, efficiency, portability and scalability cannot be introduced. Also, the same old software (especially if any part of it or its dependencies is closed source) cannot necessarily be ported to hardware of a contemporary model in the same or different make than for what the software was originally designed. Software depends upon hardware, and hardware is doomed to not only expire but also has a high risk of going out of print anyway in such a way as to prevent replacement. Only simple tools/components like wrenches, nuts, bolts, transistors and amplifiers never go out of print, as their standardized "models" don't really ever change.