Taylor's profile
Employee

Employee

 • 

2.3K Messages

 • 

40.5K Points

Tuesday, May 18th, 2021 6:23 PM

Closed

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.

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

3 years ago

The previous design was almost perfect.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

3 years ago

This redesign is shockingly bad. This used to be reference site. I don't know how anyone can be expected to get sufficient information from this layout. It will actually result in me using the site less.

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

3 years ago

HORRIBLE new page.  Old one was perfect, all the info I needed/wanted easy to find quickly.


Now, HUGE, takes up my whole 27" monitor.  I thought I'd accidentally used my browser's zoom feature but no.  Even used the zoom smaller and it's still the same awful layout.


Any chance I can have the old interface to use instead?  LOTS easier/more friendly to use.


If you want GIANT stuff on the page for folks who only use 5 or 6" phone screens, set your site to have a mobile layout that's separate and dedicated to that, don't force people using regular computer to suffer.

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled AWFUL new pages, GINORMOUS, I thought there was something wrong or I was on the wrong page.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

3 years ago

Everything is SO big now, I'm using the zoom out feature on my browser to make it more skimmable. Nine times out of ten, I'm visiting IMDB to view who's on the cast of a series or film I'm watching. Now I have to do so much more scrolling to find that information (or click Cast & Crew at the top to see the full list, which is also not what I want). I've never wanted to see videos or stills ahead of basic info about the series or film, like cast, synopsis, etc.

I guess if everything's going to stay gigantic in scale, the two-column layout for cast makes some amount of sense, but I prefer the single column. Again, it's much easier to skim that way. The cast list has long been too small compared to other elements on the page (photos and videos, mostly), so making that bigger wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but everything scaled up this way is obnoxious and too visually busy.

And those are just my gripes about the desktop experience. On mobile, I have to scroll a third of the way down the page to find the cast, then sideways through cast listing to see more than 2.5 people. It's ridiculous and difficult to use. The sideways scrolling is glitchy, too, and often ends up scrolling partway up or down the page as I'm trying to move through the cast.

4 Messages

 • 

92 Points

3 years ago

The new design layout is very complicated to use.  Please rollback to the original layout.  Its easy to consume and use.

I even created a petition to show how much I hate the new layout.. http://chng.it/P96Fm77x 

(edited)

4 Messages

 • 

208 Points

3 years ago

I'm reminded of that very successful businessman who stated something to the effect of, rather than ask customers what they want, simply TELL them what they want--which explains why I've never been an Apple user. I find the new design "too much." It wasn't broken, why try to "fix" it? Will I stop using IMDB? No, I think it's the best at what it does. But will I continue to constantly give unqualified recommendations of IMDB to everyone I know? No. Options are always best to me--why not offer them?

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

This is all really bred of the IMDb company not wanting the inconvenience of writing two sets of source code, for the two dissimilar experiences corresponding to the two respective kinds of devices used to access the site. Understandable, but I wish a better job could've been done, and I'm not sold on the idea that enough people actually have the slightest appreciation for the new design which is now shared by both https://www.imdb.com/ (desktop) and https://m.imdb.com/ (mobile). I plan to come up with a monkey script to improve my experience with the new format, but one major obstacle to overcome relates to the "all topics" feature, as I intend for the information found within it to be visible without me having click that neat enigmatic icon for it. I had done similar with the previous design, by simply toggling the style sheet (CSS) properties of the quick links bar, as it was known in the HTML source code.

11 Messages

 • 

194 Points

The thing is, with HTML5, it's not a full set of source code anymore...the same underlying information sits in a layer below the presentation layer, and all the styling can be done with style sheets - it's not complex at all. I realize it's made more complex by localizations and all the 3rd party calls they have imbedded (which is why, even with a fiber pipeline and Gig internet, it takes the new page approximately 12-15 seconds to load everything, which is a marked degradation from the previous design),  but it's still not nearly as complex as a non-technical person would think.

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Indeed. In fact, the style sheets can be used ensure, to a degree, that the appearance of a web page automatically adjusts with the dimensions of the browsing window, for all contemporary web browsers (sans the CLI kind thus far). I wish that the IMDb developers would take advantage of it. I'd like to see them explain that one away.

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

If you build this monkey script I would very much like to have access to it plz.

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Yes, I would love to accommodate, and I'd expect it to only be a few lines of code, with few subroutines involved. I don't know when I would do it, though, because one issue is that I don't often venture outside of observing Title Reference View and all the subpath pages (such as the parents guide section) for an IMDb title entry, so I'm ever so slightly indifferent on the matter despite preferring the previous design.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

3 years ago

Got hit with the new version today.  There are a very few things I like but it is in general much worse than the previous version. 

The unforgivable:  auto play videos when visiting episode pages.  I don't need trailers when I'm wanting to look up an episode. 

The bad: information is no longer logically organized.  Too much space between items.  It looks like it was designed by a graphic designer who has no idea about usability.

The OK:  I appreciate that there are now head shots around the character/actor listings.

All in all I much preferred the previous version.  I'll be switching over to tmdb in the future.

2 Messages

 • 

98 Points

Yep, all that. I've been holding on to the 'classic' as long as I could, but now they're forcing this crap down our throat. I use IMDb's data for a different website (for referencing) and this is just going to make tasks twice as long. I don't need or want the goddamned video. If I want a trailer, I'll Google or YouTube it. 

(edited)

Employee

 • 

2.3K Messages

 • 

40.5K Points

Hi @notmyname 

Thank you for your feedback. In regards to the auto play videos/trailers - if not desirable, please note that you can disable the auto play videos by tapping on the three dots and toggling the Video previews option. (see screenshot)

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

I tried that in the beginning, and it didn't work. The video were still playing no matter what I did with that option. On a slow RDP connection it was insanely annoying. I see that it is fixed now, however for me it is no longer relevant as I have switched to using other sources and/or the imdb reference view.

4 Messages

 • 

92 Points

3 years ago

New is not always better.  New is a piece of crap.  Fire the jerks who dreamed this up.  Fire the supervisor and manager too.  Fire the person who reviewed the feedback results and ignored all feedback.  Somebody/people appear to have dreamed up a project so as to justify their positions/jobs.  Programmed my first computer (Univac 1050) in 1966.  Retired from IT 2002.  Still run 4 pc's 24/7.  If it looks crappy on the face its probably crappy inside.

2 Messages

 • 

88 Points

3 years ago

Like every recent and terrible redesign, IMDB feels even more like a mobile app, and as this web trend has altered other sites I used to frequent because they've pretty much cornered the market in what it is they do, I've stopped looking for information about entertainment. Not entirely, but it's a fraction of the amount.

The pictures are gigantic, and flashy visuals take priority over now minimalist text and information. It takes longer to scroll through, with less info immediately available on the page. This is partly because there is so much more white space as it displays on my computer now that it feels like massive voids exist between each bit of info, but also because the spacing and location of that info is abysmal. I don't care what data they have on the human eye's relationship with UI/UX from top ranked university research endeavor, this is fundamentally horseѕhit.

When I finally get to what most people are looking for when they visit IMDB, the cast list, I can no longer glance down a vertical list of actor names because they are spaced out in two side by side columns of big circle pictures of actors, whose faces are poorly framed because those pictures were never intended to be cropped for a social media style circle. My eyes dart all over the page trying to read visual information, and straining to do so even when looking directly at any part of it.

Rottentomatoes and Metacritic are distant memories with no adequate replacement, thanks to recent overhauls very much like this one. I disliked all of the changes they made in previous years too, just as I did IMDB when it became more stuffed with pictures and videos, but this recent trend feels especially drastic and desperate.

Making the pain of this more intense, each redesign of this type comes also with an PR writeup about how they heard our calls for a cleaner, simpler experience, proudly framing their hard work as directly incorporating user requests and feedback into an exciting new vision that NOBODY WANTS. I've seen no evidence of a human being outside a graphic design department indicate anything positive about the direction of these sites.

I'm horrified, and here's why:

As other sites have done this, I've given up on visiting. It's too hard to navigate, and too hard to look at. I'm simply less informed, and as I no longer have a relationship with these databases, I'm losing interest in movies, television, games, comics, journalism... I'm consistently disappointed by the world of information that surrounds them, which makes the art itself less interesting to engage with.

What I still, after years, don't understand is: Why does this continue?

How does the data not show that with each overhaul, engagement slips, and if the data shows engagement rising, how could that possibly be the case when so much negative feedback exists asking them not to do the things they are now doubling down on. It's forced through each time, with each site. How are they not knowingly poisoning their own wells?

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

The future of the Web overall does seem somewhat bleak.

11 Messages

 • 

194 Points

One thing to consider regarding this trend - graphics departments and web design teams skew younger, and younger people tend to use phones and tablets much more than computers. This is one of the main reasons you see this kind of mistake made over and over and over again. Too many companies don't think about their user base when making design decisions, and designers will often design what they know. 

2 Messages

 • 

88 Points

@Texster It's true that they're skewing younger. This is just the natural progression of any industry. However, the problem is that websites are not mobile apps. Mobile apps are designed as they are for a reason. It's a screen the size of your palm meant to be navigated by fingertip. You need larger images and text to accommodate the smaller screen. The extra whitespace is necessary because of the imprecise nature of a touch interface. Web pages are (or should be) designed to be viewed on displays orders of magnitude larger and navigated by the pixel perfect precision of a mouse. This lets you have smaller images and text so that more information can be displayed on screen at once without needing to scroll constantly and whitespace should only be used sparingly for aesthetic and navigational purposes because it serves no functional purpose when it comes to finding and clicking a desired location. The two designs are completely antithetical to one another and cannot be merged. If you merge the two design philosophies then one or both will be severely compromised. In this case, it's the websites that are being hamstrung and crippled in their usability, not the apps.

(edited)

6 Messages

 • 

114 Points

3 years ago

Take a moment to ask yourself why I would ever, under any circumstances want the names of 10 actors to occupy my entire screen. 

Did you do it? Did you ask yourself that question? If so, you have now spent more time thinking about the user experience than whoever designed this layout for you.

This is amateurish garbage, and it's embarrassing for a site of this stature. IMDB is an information source, and you seem to be designing with the intent of making it as difficult as possible to access the information we need. 

Until this is updated or reverted, I'll just have to use Wikipedia to find information on movies, I guess. It's a terrible layout for that purpose, but still nowhere near as bad as this. This is unusable.

4 Messages

 • 

154 Points

Often the now LARGE pictures are not even chosen from the film concerned, but totally out of context for that movie.

- eg the star was an attractive teenager / young person in the film, whereas the pic used is from decades later, pension age +, totally misleading as to the contents of film.

1 Message

 • 

88 Points

3 years ago

Очень-очень плохо. От белых букв на черном фоне ужасно устают глаза. Уже через 10 секунд нахождения на сайте от дискомфорта хочется закрыть страницу. Ничего невозможно найти. Огромные картинки и мелкий текст. Неинформативно и неудобно. Как вернуть старый дизайн? Какой садист придумал? Мои глаза болят!!!

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

Exactly what I was thinking... to the letter.

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

I've been maintaining directly to the 'traditional' so long as I should, but now they're forcing this crap down our throat. I use IMDb's records for a specific internet site (for referencing) and that is just going to make duties twice as long with your social.

(edited)

10 Messages

 • 

232 Points

3 years ago

Terrible new "design". Who the hell comes up with this crap?? IMDb was perfectly fine until corporate decided to delete forums and around that time it kept going downhill. I still use it regularly because you have sort of a monopoly but these changes are terrible. Keep on destroying this once great site for film aficionados.

(edited)

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Well, the internal maintenance has been underway for nearly five years now, as all of it appears to be part of one big plan to make the instrument system much more scalable and portable. Some of the things going against the site-native message boards was that it was infeasible to make the boards available in a smartphone "app" version of IMDb, on account of underlying software. That was a problem in the sense that a significant portion of IMDb's visitor/subscriber base would be cut out of certain aspects of the IMDb experience. If a site-native public communication system is ever reintroduced to the IMDb, then it would be long after all the various interfaces have been normalized in functionality. This normalization process apparently has been underway since late 2016, and of course, the IMDb company didn't provide details of the plan, as it would concern all the features that would wind up being removed or simplified, whether temporarily or indefinitely, but Col Needham did more or less reveal that he had big plans for IMDb. I've no idea at all how close IMDb is to the end of the project of sorts, a hypothetical period of time whereby the only remaining "upgrades" or expansions to be undertaken are the ones that customers, fans and contributors have actually asked to be implemented or resolved.

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

I have an insight into this, and that is that the Java sdk is free to use without license so perhaps that is the reason why they have gone the way of the mobile market.  Development platforms such as Microsoft are prohibitively expensive.

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

I remember Microsoft's licensing system for the remote desktop feature of Microsoft's signature computer operating system, and I at least initially thought it was overblown, but I suppose it would've been fair enough if simply much lower prices were charged. I'm not too familiar with the other licensing schemes maintained by Microsoft. I know that I'm usually the kind of guy who would opt to use Gnu Compiler Collection instead of Microsoft Visual Basic (or whatever it was called).

Anyway, regarding the big plans for IMDb, I can tell that the development, porting and maintenance of IMDb TV (initially known as IMDb Free Dive) has been at very high priority. Which is interesting, since it is suggest that the people in charge of IMDb are at least interested in offering a streaming service. I'm not sure how I feel about the streaming of movies and shows being a primary theme of IMDb. I've always seen IMDb as the catalog of the library, not the library itself; the table of contents, not the entire book. As long as the movie "metadata" is all there, I suppose it is cool.

3 Messages

 • 

102 Points

3 years ago

Oh dear. In an effort, I assume, to keep us on each page for longer, they have rendered IMDb somewhat inaccessible to those of us who have processing disorders. I'm autistic and the immediate bombardment with huge images is extremely overwhelming and makes it incredibly difficult to filter out the information I need.

Perhaps if the images were moved to the bottom, and the most relevant information that everyone is always seeking: Episode guide, content advisory and cast and crew- were bumped to the top in a less overwhelming and plainer, easy to read format- like the old IMDb- it would improve accessibility no end.

I can't imagine how much mess this causes screenreaders who read top to bottom and now have to plough through a load of image descriptions before getting to the relevant episode/series information.

An option to switch back would be nice if you're not going to restore accessibility to us.

11 Messages

 • 

194 Points

For someone with a processing disorder, I would suggest going into your settings and switching to the reference view.

To do this, go to IMDB, log in, then click on the little upside down triangle next to your user name (near the top right hand corner of the page) and click on "Account Settings." 

On the Account Settings page, click on the "Content settings" link (under the Preferences heading).

On the Content Settings page, in the Contributors section, click the small box next to the statement "Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)" (a checkmark will appear to indicate you have selected this option) and then click the "Submit" button at the bottom of the page.

 

8.1K Messages

 • 

172K Points

Save this in FAVS for future 

Where is ...
Reference View| Change View  ? ?
https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general

Contributors
[x]  Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view)

- - -

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/introducing-updated-imdbcom-title-page-experience/60a40631c1307254c6cc1b0d?commentId=60a422f593de84003be5b5e6

.

(edited)

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

3 years ago

The new layout is CRAZY

It's 10 screens wide.  I have to use the bottom slider to read the remaining 90/95 percent.

Data is so sparse. Needs LOTS of scrolling......

I use Firefox. I see Chrome has the OLD (great) layout.

Is there a switch in Firefox to use the old layout ?

Truely DISGUSTED.....  please help     Dane

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

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

@DANE

Naw, it is broken in chrome as well.  IMDb management really dropped the ball on this one. 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@DANE  Thanks for the feedback.  If you are accessing IMDb on a desktop / laptop then the pages should not be 10 screens wide.  Please see https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/general-information/why-is-imdb-displaying-differently-on-my-browser/GF2ZAR69V859XLHF and specifically note the point on not using plugins such as ad-blockers which may change the display of the page. 

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

Ah hahaha!  Asking people to modify their browser to utilize IMDb.  Oh dear there is some hubris there.

22 Messages

 • 

406 Points

@schitlipz @Col_Needham 
(i'm experiencing slight panic..)
if it comes to having to switch off ad-blockers in order to be able to add a movie to my lists -
(...morphing into anxiety heat waves) 
i need to find a way around it...lists are holy to me. making lists, going through lists, categorising, adding information ..it's all i do.


[- maybe it's a sign.. maybe i should be spending all that time outside, collecting, categorising... leaves or something..]

@Col_Needham 
1. if it is really you Mr. Needham, which i still find hard to believe, I would like to say thank you for taking the time, trying to answer questions.   
2. where could i get information what education/references would be needed to specifically become a member of the contribution-review/data editing team (or is that something employees of other/all areas do on the side also?) 

Employee

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

175.1K Points

@rice_withaspoon  It really is me. As I mentioned here, I have been to this rodeo several times before so it is easier for me to answer and let the team continue with the actual launch; I may have more experience leading a company through a web redesign than anyone else on the planet, given the IMDb website was one of the first one hundred or so sites to launch back in 1993 (and IMDb itself predates the web, having launched as downloadable software, which I wrote, on the internet in the pre-web days back in October 1990).  We try to avoid full redesigns as much as possible as they are quite disruptive as you can see on this thread. As hard as it might be to believe, we did not set out to annoy people here.  The design tests well and we retained the full functionality of the previous design, plus added many features for customers who access IMDb on a mobile browser. It has significant behind-the-scenes technological advantages. 

One problem with redesigns is that only people who dislike them are motivated to comment. This leads to the false impression among feedback providers that they are speaking for all customers -- reinforced when this is all they see on a public board like Sprinklr.  While more people will dislike it than are actually commenting, it is worth remembering that over 200 million people access IMDb worldwide each month.  The majority of those customers are getting on adapting to and enjoying the new design (or at least the 50% in the current launch set so far).  I liked the 2010 design when it launched. I have been using the new 2021 design exclusively via a staff beta since October 2020, and when I have to switch back to confirm how something worked previously to answer a question here, the old design looks outdated and clunky.  When the 2010 design launched we saw similar shock reactions to the change as I mentioned earlier; the decision to make a similar large scale change in 2021 was not made lightly (and in fact, we have split this one up a little -- in 2010 we changed home, title, name and all of the subpages at the same time; this one is actually more gradual, so we did learn something from 2010 :-))

Our job listing are on imdb.com/jobs although we do not have any vacancies listed there on the contribution vetting team at the moment. Typical requirements are experience with content management systems, a college degree, dealing with a high degree ambiguity (see also Amazon Leadership Principles) and, of course, a love of movies / TV / entertainment. 

Hope this helps. 

Col

10.6K Messages

 • 

224.4K Points

Well, time will tell as to which design held the longest tenure, and there is probably merit in that length.

8.1K Messages

 • 

172K Points

@Col_Needham

One problem with redesigns is that only people who dislike them are motivated to comment

- - -


ACT_1 :

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/introducing-updated-imdbcom-title-page-experience/60a40631c1307254c6cc1b0d?commentId=60b196c30f440e2527306532


280,000  New Users past week
and only a few of those found their way here
263 New sprinklrs past week
- - -
  
https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/introducing-updated-imdbcom-title-page-experience/60a40631c1307254c6cc1b0d?commentId=60a748ff8c74ef317253ce0e&replyId=60a7df338c74ef317253d8c5


Add 
INTRODUCING: Updated IMDb.com Title page experience
to the top of page:
https://www.imdb.com/

- - -

EDIT to add:

IMDb Users may not want to register here just to post one _____ Comment

Easier back in the Old days...

Board: IMDb Information 
http://web.archive.org/web/20101008172355/http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000040/threads/

.

(edited)

36 Messages

 • 

486 Points

@Col_Needham 

Of course do only dislikes find their way to the comment section. So when you launch something that big, why don't do a simple poll with two buttons - like or dislike? There would be your answer! Most users don't want to open a new account for the message board for that, only people who are frustrated because they can't find their feature that they're used to or/and have to scroll/click more to get to it.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

3 years ago

😫 NOT HAPPY, DO THIS:

Go to Account Setting> Content Settings> at the bottom select, tick the box next to Contributors: Show reference view with full cast and crew (advanced view) 

You now have reverted back to almost the same as the previous layout.

😁😊

22 Messages

 • 

508 Points

Thanks, BBogus!  It's a nice start.  However, it still has a long and bothersome list of names without any options to hide or curl them up in any way.

It seems everybody has a different opinion on what is important and useful information, and what we like to see.  I personally liked going to IMDB only after Tomatoes got too scripty.  All I wanted was a title, year, and rating -- easily, and quickly accessible.

Little did I know how entertaining the negative reviews of some movies are.  :D  And that's what is important to me about IMDB.  Of course those same contributors help rate it too.  In fact, I often think the reviews are more entertaining than some of the movies!

In my opinion, if a site depends on user contributions to make it what it is, then it should truly listen to users' feedback as well.  It would at least help with the phenomenon of "brand loyalty".

10 Messages

 • 

232 Points

@BBogus

Thanks for the hint, it helps as a workaround to look up the cast. I have to click on reviews to see the user lists, no idea where polls are, and I have to click on Plot summary in order to avoid all the scrolling. When I click on Technical specs it doesn't show the "Also known as" titles like you find under Additional details. More like this or related news are also not visible.

I'll have to try this for a while (if it stays in the long run) but am still very disappointed with the changes.

10 Messages

 • 

232 Points

@schitlipz I agree that some reviews are often more entertaining than the movies. But I feel many great reviewers left entirely or stopped writing reviews. And I noticed a tendency to rate movies too high resp. a polarization of fanbois hyping up what they love and others who despise blockbusters rating them 1 star even if they likely know the movie merits a 3 or 4 on technical grounds alone.

4 Messages

 • 

208 Points

@BBogus   Thanks for this! It makes viewing much easier for me and is closer to what I considered "normal" for this site.

(edited)

36 Messages

 • 

648 Points

@BBogus

A very nice suggestion, however some movies have such a large list of ppl involved in the making of said movie that scrolling down becomes quite a chore.  Also I would miss having the recommended movies related with said selection detail.  Still, it was a really nice olive branch so thank you for that.